VENEZUELA-BRITISH  GUIANA  BOUNDARY  ARBITRATION 


THE  PRINTED  ARGUMENT 


ON  BEHALF  OF  THE 


UNITED    STATES    OF   VENEZUELA 


BEFORE  THE 


TRIBUNAL   OF   ARBITRATION 


M.  DE  ROJAS,  BENJAMIN  HARRISON, 

Agent  of  yene^uela.  BENJAMIN  F.  TRACY, 

S.  MALLET-PREVOST, 
JAMES  RUSSELL  SOLEY, 

Counsel  for  yene^uela. 


In  Two  Volumes. — Volume  1. 


The  Evening  Post  Job  PRiNTiNG"HotrsE,  156  Fulton  Street 
1898 


VENEZUELA-BRITISH  GUIANA  BOUNDARY  ARBITRATION 


•   THE  PRINTED  ARGUMENT 


ON  BEHALF  OF  THE 


UNITED    STATES    OF   VENEZUELA 


BEFORE  THE 


TRIBUNAL  OF  ARBITRATION 


J.  M.  DE  ROJAS, 

^genl  of  yene{uela. 


BENJAMIN  HARRISON, 
BENJAMIN  P.  TRACY, 
S.  MALLET-PREVOST, 
JAMES  RUSSELL  SOLEY, 

Counsel  for  l^ene{tiela. 


In  Two  Volumes. — Volume  1, 


NEW  YORK 
The  Evening  Post  Job  Printing  House,  156  Fulton  Street 

1898 


,^1 


I*' 


Y'a: 


(V 


Pursuant  to  Article  VIII  of  the  Treaty  of  Arbitration  signed 
at  Washington  on  the  2nd  day  of  February,  1897,  between  the 
United  States  of  Venezuela  and  Her  Majesty,  the  Queen  of  Great 
Britain  and  Ireland,  the  Agent  of  Venezuela  before  the  Arbitration 
Tribunal  has  the  honor  to  submit  herewith  the  printed  argument 
prepared  by  the  counsel  for  Venezuela. 

The  Agent  also  has  the  honor  to  present  a  number  of  papers 
which  have  been  prepared  by  His  Excellency  Senor  Rafael  Seijas, 
formerly  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  Republic  of  Venezuela, 
as  also  two  papers  prepared  by  the  undersigned  Agent, 

The  papers  by  Senor  Seijas  and  by  the  undersigned  will  be 
found  at  pages  iii — Ixxx  of  Volume  II. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

J.  M.  DE  ROJAS, 

Agent  of  Venezuela. 

Washington,  D.  C,  December  15,  1898. 


161032 


New  York,  December  15,  1898. 

Your  Excellency: 

We  have  the  honor  to  hand  you  herewith  the  printed  argu- 
ment prepared  by  us,  as  counsel  of  the  United  States  of  Vene- 
zuela, in  order  that,  in  pursuance  of  Article  VIII  of  the  Treaty 
of  Arbitration  between  Venezuela  and  Great  Britain,  signed  at 
Washington,  February  2,  1897,  it  may  be  delivered  to  the  Arbi- 
trators and  to  the  Agent  of  the  British  Government. 

Very  respectfully, 

BENJAMIN  HARRISON, 
BENJAMIN  F.  TRACY, 
S.  MALLET-PREVOST, 
JAMES  RUSSELL  SOLEY, 

Counsel  for  Venezuela. 

To  His  Excellency,  J.  M.  de  Rojas, 

Agent  of  Venezuela. 


CONTKNTS. 


I 


VoluTne    1. 

PAOB 

Chapter        I.  General  outline  of  the  Controversy 1 

"             U.  The  Treaty  of  Arbitration 9 

*'           m.  Diplomatic  Correspondence 67 

IV.  The  Schomburgk  Line 125 

"  V.  The  Geographical  features  of  the  territory  in  dispute  as 

bearing  on  the  question  of  title 153 

VI.  Spanish  Title— Discovery 177 

"  VII.  The  Constitution  of  the  Dutch  "West  India  Company  as 

bearing  on  the  question  of  title 239 

"        Vni.  The  Dutch  Title— Conquest 259 

"            IX.  — Treaty  of  Munster  a  Cession 281 

•*             X.  Adverse  Holding— Dutch  Boundary 309 

'«           XI.  -Law  of 353 


Volume    3. 

PAGE 

Chapter    XH.  —Settlement 393 

Xin.  —Political  Control 469 

XIV.  —Trade  Eelations 561 

XV.  —Indians 589 

"        XVI.  —Miscellaneous  Acts 639 

XVn.  Events  in  Guiana  from  1814  to  1850 663 

"      XVni.  National  Security 719 

"         XIX.  Watershed 737 

"          XX    Middle  Distance  and  Natural  Boundaries 757 

Conclusion    765 

1.  The  Bull  of  Pope  Alexander,  1493;  by  Kafael  Seijas iii 

2.  Comments  and  Criticisms  on  the  British  Case;  by  Rafael 

Seijas xi 

3.  Comments  and  Criticisms  on  the  Counter-Cases  of  Vene- 

zuela and  Great  Britain;  by  Eafael  Seijas xxxi 

4.  Notes  on  Marmion's  Report  of  July  10,  1788,  and  on 

maps  submitted  by  Great  Britain;  by  Rafael  Seijas . .  1 

5.  The  Lines  of  Schomburgk  and  of  Codazzi;  by  J.  M.  de 

Rojas Ixxiii 

6.  British  Diplomacy  in  Caracas  from  1830  to  1850;  by  J. 

M.  de  Rojas Ixxvi 


CORRECTIONS. 


For  Read 

Page  82,  par.  2,  line  1 That  Sir  Robert Sir  Robert. 

156,"    4,     "    3 had  anywhere had  yet  had  any  where. 

168,   "    3,     "    3-4 of  the  river  named of  that  river,  named. 

173,  6th  line  from  last,  ."as  the as  "the. 

314,  par,  4,  line  1 explained  (p.         ) explained  (p.  162). 

316,     "    1,     "     2-3 ... .  Spaniard  "—evidently Spaniard  "  (B.  C.  I,  213), 

evidently. 

316,     "    3,  last  line....  (B.  C,         )..... (Argument,  pp.  531-551). 

329,     "2,linel2 (p.         ) (p.  155). 

336,  "    2,    "    1 Storm  claimed  he  transmitted Storm  transmitted. 

337,  "    2,    "    7 (p.         ) (p.  316). 

337,     "    2,     "   8 1894 1694. 

337,     "    2,     "   8 Spaniard,  administration"        Spaniard," adminis- 
tration. 

337,     "    3,  lines  1-2. . .  .boundaries.     Put  in  limitation  to.  .boundaries  to. 

339,  "    3,  line  6 (V.  C.  11,99) (V.  C,  H,  117). 

340,  "    5,  last  line ...   (p.         )   (p.  329). 

343,     "    5,  line  2 letter  last  quoted letter  of  August  1761. 

349,     "    1,  lines  5-6. . . .  which  never  went .which  went. 

370,     ' '    5,  line  1 adversary adverse. 

393,  4th  line  from  last . .  (pp.         ) (pp.  9-67). 

394,  par.  5,  line  1 (1) (3). 

394,  "    6,     "     1 (2) (4). 

395,  "    2,  last  line ....  (Ch.  VII,  pp.  ) (Ch.  V,  pp.  153-177). 

397,     "    6,  last  line. . .  .(B.  C.  1, 167) (B.  C.  I,  187). 

399,     "    4,     "       "....(B.C.         ) (B.  C,  p.  35). 

405,     "    1,  line  5J Add  The  British  Case  (p.  28) 

states : 

408,  "    6,     "    6 (B.C.         ) (V.  C.-C,  II,  102). 

409,  "    1,  last  line  ...  (V.  C.  II,  318) (V.  C.-C,  II,  107). 

412,     "    2,  line  5 200 300, 

412,  "    6,    "    3 (V.  C.  II,  55) (B.  C.  II,  55). 

413,  "    last  line (B.  C.  II,         ) (B.  C.  II,  68). 

416,     "    7,  line  4 as of. 

"       "    7,     "    5 of as. 

419,     "    5,  last  line . . . .  (p.        ) (pp.  487-492;  also  V.  C- 

C.  I,  56-58). 

422,     "    1,  last  line. . .  .(B.  C.         )  (B.  C,  II,  130). 

428,     "    4,  line  6 past post. 


Far  Rend 

Pago  432,  last  par,,  line  1 this  statement  these  statements. 

••    433,  par.  1,  last  line  , .  .occurred according. 

«•      "       "    5,  last  line...  1764 1754. 

•'    441,  last  par.,  line  4 Governor  General,  Don Governor  General.    Don. 

"    466,  par.  1,  last  line ....  (B.  C.  Vn,         ) (B.  C.  VU,  22,  25-27). 

"    468,     "    1,     "     "     kind,  anybody kind,  by  anybody. 

"    479,     "    8,     "     "     fort  at  Orinocque  fort  here,  to  Orinocque. 

"    487,     "    2,  line  4 rights  of  in rights  of  Spain  in. 

"   488,     "    1,     "    6 Cuynni,  or  exercised Cuyuni  ever  exercised. 

"    495,     "    1,     "    4 where were. 

"    495,  last  line as  to  make  as  to  making. 

"    496,  par.  2,  line  6 can could. 

"    500,     "    3,     •'    6 meaning  be  conveyed meaning  conveyed. 

•'    507,     "    2,     "    8 two  years  before  that  same  year. 

'•    509,  last  line page pages. 

"    517,  par.  6,  line  3 not  yet  ventured not  ventured. 

"518,     "     2,     "    4 (B.  C.  VI,  180) (B.  C.  V,  180). 

•'    521,  first  line (V.  C.  II,  30) (V.  C.  II,  330). 

"    524,  par.  3,  line  1 (B.  C.  H,  36) (V.  G.  U,  36). 

"    540,     "     1,     "     4 which this. 

••    545,     "    9,     "    2 168 186. 

"    553,     "    2,     "    6-7 to  that  the  Spanish to  that  of  the  Spanish. 

"    555,     *'    3,     "    4 carry  the carry  away  the. 

"    558,     "     1,     *'  10-11..  .accompanied  continuous accompanied   by  contin- 
uous. 

•'    558,  next  to  last  line. .  .them   there. 

"    617,  par.  3,  line  5 waste  to  the  Dutch waste  the  Dutch. 

6,  last  line ....  they  successfully they  had  successfully. 

4,  line  2 1785  1755. 

2 Chiefs  Captains. 

5 Post Posts. 

7 were , was. 

2 that but. 

3 (B.  C.  VI,  94) (B.  C.  VI,  96). 

3 between  thisa.udi  Oovernment  insert.. country,  and  considering 

it  unsafe  to  encourage 
this  excessive  influx  of 
strangers  into  the. 

696,  "    5,     "2 would could. 

697,  "    6,     "    1 BarimaJ,  all Barima]  there  are  several 

Spanish  Indians,  all. 

748,  last  par.  lines  1-2... are  entirely  uninliabited are  uninhabited. 

763,    •'      "    line  1 added,  especially added  that,  especially. 


620, 

•    6, 

628, 

'    4. 

633, 

'    4, 

637, 

•    4, 

639, 

•    2, 

668, 

•    4, 

693, 

•    1, 

696, 

'    3, 

CHAPTER  L 

GENERAL  OUTLINE  OF  THE  CONTROVERSY* 

The  purpose  of  the  Treaty  by  which  this  high  Tribunal  has 
been  constituted  is  to  make  *'  a  speedy  and  final  settlement"  of  a 
boundary  dispute  of  long  standing,  which  arose  in  Guiana  be- 
tween the  Kingdom  of  Spain  and  the  Netherlands,  and  which  was 
left  unsettled  by  them  at  the  time  of  the  acquisition  of  their  ter- 
ritories by  their  successors  in  title,  Venezuela  and  Great  Britain. 
Neither  the  Netherlands  nor  Spain  is  a  party  to  the  present  con- 
troversy. 

The  original  title  of  Spain  to  Guiana,  that  is  to  say,  the  terri- 
tory betvveen  the  Orinoco  and  the  Amazon,  rested  upon  discovery 
and  occupation. 

The  mainland  of  South  America  was  discovered  by  Columbus 
in  1498  in  this  very  region.  In  the  following  years  his  lieutenants 
explored  the  coast  between  the  Amazon  and  the  Orinoco.  During 
the  first  quarter  of  the  sixteenth  century,  charters  were  granted 
and  settlements  established  by  Spain  in  various  parts  of  South 
America,  the  city  of  Cumana,  a  short  distance  to  the  w^est  of  the 
Orinoco,  being  one  of  the  most  ancient. 

In  1530,  a  grant  of  Guiana  was  made  by  the  Spanish  Crown 
to  Diego  de  Ordaz.  The  charter  defined  the  grant  as  including 
the  coast  from  the  Orinoco  to  the  Amazon.  In  1531,  Ordaz,  in 
command  of  an  expedition,  took  possession  under  his  charter, 
ascending  the  Orinoco  for  six  hundred  miles.  In  1537,  his  lieu- 
tenant, Herrera,  ascended  the  Orinoco  still  further. 


2  OUTLINE  OF  THE  CONTROVERSY. 

Many  other  Spanish  expeditions  are  recorded  during  the  six- 
teenth century,  the  last  and  most  important  of  them  being  that 
of  Antonio  de  Berrio,  which  started  in  1582  from  Santa  Fe,  the 
capital  of  the  New  Kingdom  of  Granada,  and  proceeded  down  the 
Meta  and  the  Orinoco,  finally  establishing  settlements  on  the 
island  of  Trinidad  and  at  Santo  Thome,  on  the  east  or  south  bank 
of  the  Orinoco,  and  therefore  in  the  territory  of  Guiana,  in  1591. 
Berrio  was  appointed  by  the  King  of  Spain,  Governor  and 
Captain- General  of  Guiana,  and  the  boundaries  of  his  province 
were  defined  as  the  Orinoco  and  the  Amazon,  and  included  also 
the  island  of  Trinidad.  In  1595,  Vera,  Berrio's  principal  lieuten- 
ant, brought  out  an  expedition  from  Spain,  numbering  two 
thousand  persons,  as  colonists,  soldiers  and  missionaries. 

During  the  ten  years  following  the  foundation  of  Santo 
Thome  expeditions  were  made  from  time  to  time  and  at  various 
points  along  the  coast  of  Guiana  and  in  the  interior,  of  which 
formal  possession  was  taken  with  solemn  ceremonies  b)'  Berrio. 
The  Essequibo  is  mentioned  among  the  points  frequented  by  Ber- 
rio's lieutenants.  It  was  early  settled  by  the  Spaniards,  and 
supplies  of  provisions  for  Santo  Thome  and  Trinidad  were  obtained 
from  there.  Trade  was  carried  on  at  that  point  and  in  the  inter- 
vening territory  of  Barima  and  Moruca. 

In  1581  the  Netherlands  formally  renounced  the  sovereignty  of 
Spain,  of  which  they  had  until  that  time  been  the  vassals,  and 
the  war  then  raging  between  the  two  countries  continued  until 
1648,  with  an  interval  of  truce  from  1609  to  1621. 

The  first  mention  of  a  Dutch  voyage  to  Guiana  was  in  1598, 
when  a  trading  vessel  of  the  Dutch  ascended  the  Orinoco  to  Santo 
Thome.  The  Dutchman  Cabeliau  took  part  in  the  voyage  and 
gave  an  account  of  it.     It  was  purely  a  mercantile  venture. 

No  Dutch  settlement  is  mentioned  on  the  coast  of  Guiana  prior 
to  1613,  in  which  year  the  Spaniards  surprised  and  destroyed 
their  settlement  upon  the  river  Corentin.  No  Dutch  settle- 
ment is  known  at  this  period  west  of  the  Corentin;  but  in  1615 


OUTLINE   OP   THE   CONTROVERSY.  3 

there  was  a  settlement  of  Spaniards,  who  were  engaged  in  tilhng 
the  soil  in  Essequibo. 

In  1621,  the  truce  having  come  to  an  end,  the  Dutch  West  India 
Company  was  chartered  by  the  Netherlands  for  the  purpose  of 
concentrating  Dutch  trade  and  maritime  enterprise  in  connection 
with  both  continents  of  America  in  the  hands  of  a  single  com- 
pany. About  1626  the  company  sent  persons  to  "  lie  "  in  the  river 
Essequibo,  and  at  some  time  within  the  next  eighteen  years  a  fort 
was  built  upon  the  site  of  an  earlier  Spanish  fort  on  the  island  of 
Kykoveral,  situated  in  the  Mazaruni  River,  close  to  the  point  at 
which  it  empties  into  the  Essequibo. 

By  the  Treaty  of  Munster  (1618),  at  the  end  of  the  war,  Spain 
acknowledged  the  independence  of  the  Netherlands,  and  released 
and  confirmed  the  possession  to  them  of  the  places  which  they  at 
that  date  "  held  and  possessed."  At  that  date  the  Dutch  held  and 
possessed  several  places  in  the  territory  of  Guiana,  such  as  Suri- 
nam, Berbice,  and  Essequibo.  During  the  war  they  had  also 
twice  successfully  attacked  and  sacked  Santo  Thome,  the  Spanish 
capital  of  Guiana.  As  far  as  the  evidence  shows,  however,  the 
westernmost  of  the  places  held  or  possessed  by  the  Dutch  at  the 
date  of  the  Treaty  was  the  fort  at  Kykoveral. 

Upon  the  facts,  Venezuela  contends  that  an  original  title  was 
established  and  perfected  by  Spain  to  the  whole  of  Guiana  by  dis- 
covery and  occupation;  that  by  the  Treaty  of  Munster,  at  the  close 
of  the  Thirty  Years'  War,  Spain  confirmed  the  Dutch  title  to  the 
places  they  held  and  possessed  at  the  date  of  the  Treaty,  which 
places  they  had  acquired  by  conquest  during  the  war,  and  that  the 
westernmost  of  the  places  so  held  and  possessed  was  the  island  of 
Kykoveral,  to  which  access  from  the  sea  was  only  obtained  by  the 
river  Essequibo;  that  therefore  the  river  Essequibo,  with  the  said 
island,  forms  the  western  boundary  of  Dutch  acquisition  in  1618, 
and  determines  the  western  limit  of  the  Dutch  territories  at  that 
period. 


4  OUTLINE  OF  THE  CONTROVERSY. 

During  the  following  period,  lasting  for  one  hundred  and  sixty- 
six  years,  the  Dutch  remained  in  possession  of  the  Essequibo,  and 
gradually  developed  a  settlement  and  plantations  on  that  river. 
At  first  the  centre  of  settlement  was  the  island  of  Kykoveral,  the 
plantations  being  grouped  around  it  on  the  neighboring  banks  of 
the  Essequibo,  the  Cuyuni  and  the  Massaruni. 

All  these  rivers,  at  a  distance  of  less  than  twenty  miles  from 
their  point  of  union,  are  obstructed  by  falls  or  rapids,  at  which 
point  navigation  ends.  The  settlements  never  went  beyond  these 
falls.  Their  tendency  during  the  whole  period  of  Dutch  rule  was 
down  the  river,  until  finally  the  neighborhood  of  the  original  post 
was  almost  abandoned,  the  plantations  growing  in  number  and 
extent,  however,  towards  the  river  mouth. 

In  1658  a  new  colony  was  established  on  the  Pomeroon,  a 
river  about  thirty  miles  northwest  of  the  Essequibo,  emptying  into 
the  sea.  This  was  destroyed  by  a  hostile  English  attack  in  1665, 
again  founded  in  1686,  and  finally  destroyed  by  the  French  in 
1689.  From  that  time  Dutch  dominion  on  the  Pomeroon  was 
only  asserted  by  a  trading  post.  The  territory  west  of  Moruca, 
where  the  post  was  finally  placed,  the  Dutch  never  settled,  and 
hardly  traversed,  except  in  the  early  period  for  the  purpose  of 
trading  with  the  Spaniards  of  Orinoco. 

In  16Y4  the  Dutch  West  India  Company  came  to  an  end,  and  a 
charter  was  given  to  a  new  company,  which  took  the  place  of  the 
old  one,  but  whose  operations  were  restricted  specifically  to  Esse- 
quibo and  Pomeroon. 

A  great  growth  of  Spanish  settlement  was  witnessed  in  the 
territory  on  the  upper  Cuyuni  and  its  tributaries,  starting  from 
the  immediate  neighborhood  of  Santo  Thome,  until  at  the  end  of 
the  eighteenth  century  there  were  over  thirty  such  settlements  in 
this  quarter,  most  of  them  conducted  by  Spanish  missionaries. 
There  were  also  important  towns,  such  as  Upata  and  Tupuquen. 
Great    numbers    of    Indians    established    themselves    with    the 


OUTLINE  OF  THE  CONTROVERSY.  6 

Spaniards  at  the  mission  settlements,  and  under  their  direction 
and  supervision  engaged  in  agriculture  or  other  occupations.  The 
produce  of  these  towns  and  settlements,  especially  the  tobacco 
of  Upata  and  the  cattle  and  hides  from  the  missions,  became  the 
principal  exports  of  the  Spanish  colony.  A  fort  was  placed  on 
the  south  bank  of  the  Cuyuni,  opposite  the  Curumo. 

The  Spaniards  also  maintained  an  occupation  of  the  lower 
Orinoco,  which  gradually  developed  until  at  the  end  of  this  period 
there  were  five  posts  at  intervals  on  the  banks  of  the  river  or  its 
islands  below  the  old  site  of  Santo  Thome.  Above  that  point  was 
the  capital,  Angostura,  and  the  important  settlements  of  Suay, 
Piacoa  and  others,  all  on  the  south  of  the  Orinoco.  The  lowest 
of  the  five  posts  on  the  river  was  a  pilot  station  on  Papagos 
Island,  a  short  distance  above  the  river  mouth. 

The  dispute  between  Spain  and  the  Netherlands  as  to  the  posses- 
sion of  territory  west  of  the  falls  of  the  Cuyuni,  in  the  interior, 
and  of  Essequibo,  on  the  coast,  first  arose  on  the  occasion  of  the  sta- 
tioning of  a  trading  agent  by  the  Dutch  in  the  Cuyuni  at  a  point 
about  fifty  miles  from  its  mouth,  or  from  thirty-five  to  forty  miles 
above  the  falls  which  marked  the  limit  of  Dutch  settlement.  The 
Spanish  Commandant  of  Guayana,  asserting  that  this  was  an 
intrusion  upon  Spanish  territory,  destroyed  the  post  in  1758  and 
made  prisoners  of  the  occupants,  upon  which  the  Netherlands  made 
a  remonstrance.  The  Dutch  remonstrance  was  not  pressed,  and 
no  attention  was  ever  paid  to  it  by  Spain,  which  thereafter 
maintained  an  active  patrol  of  the  interior  and  of  the  coast 
territory  to  the  limits  of  Dutch  settlement. 

In  1810  Venezuela  declared  her  independence  of  Spain,  and 
after  a  protracted  war  obtained  its  recognition. 

By  the  final  Treaty  of  Peace  and  Recognition  between  Vene- 
zuela and  Spain,  dated  March  30,  1845,  Spain  "  renounces  for  her- 
self, her  heirs  and  successors  the  sovereignty,  rights  and  action 
which  she  has  upon  the  American  territory  known  under  the 


6  OUTLINE  OF   THE  CONTROVERSY. 

old  name  of  Captaincy  General  of  Venezuela,  now  Republic  of 
Venezuela."    (V.  C,  vol.  iii,  p.  48.) 

Article  II  defines  the  territory  thus  renounced  and  ceded  as 
follows: 

"In  consequence  of  this  renunciation  and  cession  H.  M.  recognizes  the 
llepublic  of  Venezuela  as  a  free,  sovereign  and  independent  nation,  com- 
posed of  the  provinces  and  territories  mentioned  in  her  Constitution  and 
other  posterior  laws,  to  wit :  MargnritA,  Guaya7ia,  Cumana,  Barcelona,  Car- 
acas, Carabobo,  Barquisiraeto,  Barinas,  Apure,  Merida,  Trujillo,  Coro  and 
Maracaibo  and  any  other  territories  or  islands  which  may  belong  to  her." 
(V.  C,  vol.  iii,  pp.  48-49). 

The  boundary  of  the  province  of  Guayana  is  stated  in  the 
Instruccion  of  Don  Jose  Abalos,  Intendant  General  of  the  Cap- 
taincy General  of  Venezuela,  in  February,  1779,  "  for  the  settle- 
ment of  the  Province  of  Guayana,"  as  follows: 

"  The  boundaries  of  the  said  Province  of  Guayana,  which  begins,  on 
its  eastern  side,  to  windward  of  the  outflow  of  the  River  Orinoco  into  the 
sea  on  the  border  of  the  Dutch  Colony  of  Essequibo."  (B.  C,  IV,  pp.  194- 
195.) 

During  the  war  of  1803  the  British  took  Essequibo  and  held  it 
by  military  occupation  until  1814.  By  the  First  Additional  Ar- 
ticle of  the  Treaty  of  London  dated  August  13,  1814,  the 
Netherlands  ceded  to  Great  Britain  the  "establishments  of 
Demerara,  Essequibo  and  Berbice."  (V.  C,  vol.  iii,  p.  47.)  The 
territory  ceded  came  subsequently  to  be  known  as  British 
Guiana. 

It  has  been  the  contention  of  Venezuela  that  at  the  time  of  the 
acquisition  of  British  Guiana  by  Great  Britain,  in  1814,  the 
western  boundary  of  the  Dutch  territory  was  the  boundary  which 
had  been  established  by  the  Treaty  of  Munster,  and  that  the 
Spanish  title  to  the  territory  west  of  that  boundary  had  not  been 
divested  by  any  act  of  the  Dutch  in  the  intervening  period;  that 
in  so  far  as  the  rule  of  adverse  holding  which  has  been  agreed  to 


OUTLINE  OF  THE  CONTROVERSY.  T 

by  Venezuela  in  the  Treaty  of  Arbitration  is  concerned,  no  exten- 
sion of  Dutch  settlement  or  control  beyond  the  boundaries  here- 
tofore named  has  brought  the  Dutch  occupation  during  this 
period  within  the  terms  of  the  rule,  and  that  the  boundaries 
existing  in  1814  are,  therefore,  the  same  as  those  existing  in 
1648. 

No  question  as  to  the  boundary  arose  between  Venezuela  and 
Great  Britain  until  1841,  when  the  British  Surveyor  Schomburgk 
set  up  boundary  posts  along  a  certain  line,  afterwards  known  as 
"the  Schomburgk  line,"  upon  territory  to  which  Venezuela 
claims  title.  Upon  the  protest  of  Venezuela,  Great  Britain  dis- 
claimed any  intention  of  asserting  dominion  by  the  placing  of  the 
posts,  and  removed  them.  A  negotiation  between  Lord  Aberdeen 
and  Seiior  Fortique  thereupon  took  place  in  reference  to  the 
boundary,  which,  however,  came  to  no  result. 

As  to  the  period  from  1814  to  1897,  Venezuela  contends  that, 
under  the  terms  of  the  Treaty  by  which  the  Arbitrators  were 
directed  to  "investigate  and  ascertain  the  extent  of  the  territories 
belonging  to,  or  that  might  lawfully  be  claimed  by,  the  United 
Netherlands  or  by  the  Kingdom  of  Spain  respectively  at  the  time 
of  the  acquisition  by  Great  Britain  of*  the  Colony  of  British 
Guiana,"  the  consideration  of  acts  performed  by  Great  Britain 
subsequent  to  this  period  is  excluded,  in  so  far  as  the  question  of 
establishing  the  title  by  adverse  holding  is  concerned. 

The  apprehension  of  attempts  to  occupy  the  territory  in  dispute 
led,  in  1850,  to  an  exchange  of  notes  between  the  two  parties, 
-eitTbodying  an  agreement  on  the  part  of  each  not  to  occupy  or 
encroach  upon  the  territory  in  dispute.  Charges  have  been  made 
on  one  side  or  the  other  of  violations  of  the  agreement,  and,  in 
consequence  of  Great  Britain's  refusal  to  withdraw  her  stations 
and  officials  from  the  disputed  territory,  diplomatic  relations  were 
broken  off  by  Venezuela  in  1887.  The  agreement  has  never  been 
abrogated,  however,  and  was  appealed  to  by  Great  Britain  as  late 
as  the  year  last  mentioned. 


8  OUTLINE  OF  THE   CONTROVERSY. 

Negotiations  have  from  time  to  time  been  attempted  in  refer- 
ence to  the  boundary,  in  the  latest  of  which,  that  in  1893,  Great 
Britain  laid  claim  not  only  to  the  territory  bounded  by  the  Schom- 
burgk  line,  but  to  a  vast  region  to  the  west  of  it,  including 
territory  which  had  been  occupied  by  the  Spanish  settlements  of 
the  eighteenth  century.     These  negotiations  have  proved  fruitless. 

During  the  last  twelve  years  settlements  have  been  made  in 
the  disputed  territory  under  the  authority  of  Great  Britain, 
lands  have  been  allotted,  plantations  established,  numerous  police 
stations  and  Government  offices  have  been  erected,  and  an 
enormous  revenue  has  been  derived  by  the  Colonial  authorities 
from  the  royalty  on  gold  mining. 


CHAPTER  m 

THE  TREATY  OF  ARBITRATION. 

Before  proceeding  to  the  consideration  of  the  facts  which  are 
made,  by  the  Treaty,  the  subject  of  inquiry  in  the  present  contro- 
versy, it  is  necessary  to  examine  the  provisions  of  the  Treaty 
itself. 

h    THE  PURPOSE  OF  THE  TREATY. 

The  purpose  of  the  Treaty  of  Arbitration  entered  into  by  and 

between  the  Governments  of  Great  Britain  and  Venezuela  is  stated 

in  the  preamble  as  follows: 

"  Her  Majesty  the  Queen  of  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and 
Ireland,  and  the  United  States  of  Venezuela,  being  desirous  to  provide  for 
an  amicable  settlement  of  the  question  which  has  arisen  between  their  re- 
spective Governments  concerning  the  boundary  between  the  Colony  of 
British  Guiana  and  the  United  States  of  Venezuela,  have  resolved  to  submit 
to  arbitration  the  question  involved." 

n.    THE  QUESTION  IN  CONTROVERSY. 

The  duty  imposed  upon  the  Tribunal  is  stated  in  Article  I  of 

the  Treaty  as  follows: 

"  An  Arbitral  Tribunal  shall  be  immediately  appointed  to  determine  the 
boundary-line  between  the  Colony  of  British  Guiana  and  the  United  States 
of  Venezuela." 

The  first  point  to  be  noticed  in  the  Treaty  is  that  the  question 
in  controversy,  as  established  both  by  the  preamble  and  by  Article 
I,  is  *'to  determine  the  boundary-line  between  the  Colony  of 
British  Guiana  and  the  United  States  of  Venezuela."  This  fact  is 
of  prime  importance.  What  is  to  be  determined  is  the  boundary 
line,  and  the  boundary  line  between  two  States.  It  is  a  single 
line.  The  States  are  recognized  as  coterminous.  The  territory  in 
question  is  territory  that  belongs  either  to  one  or  to  the  other. 
There  are  not  two  boundary  lines  to  be  fixed.    There  is  no  inter- 


10  TREATY  OF  ARBITRATION. 

mediate  stretch  of  territory  between  the  two  States  which  belongs 
to  neither.  The  boundary  is  a  line  which  marks  not  only  the 
frontier  of  one,  but  the  frontier  of  the  other. 

This  statement  of  the  question  in  controversy  is  in  accordance 
with  the  history  of  the  dispute.  From  the  time  the  question  of 
frontiers  first  arose  by  the  confirmation  of  the  Dutch  title  to  what 
they  "held  and  possessed"  in  1648,  it  has  been  a  question  of  a 
boundary  line  between  two  coterminous  States.  It  has  never 
been  regarded  otherwise  by  either  the  present  contestants  or  by 
their  respective  predecessors  in  the  title,  Spain  and  the  Nether- 
lands. There  never  has  been  a  time  when  either  party  admitted 
or  in  any  way  implied  the  existence  of  an  unappropriated  belt  of 
territory  between  them.  Nor  has  any  third  party  ever  suggested 
the  existence  of  such  a  belt. 

The  British  Counter- Case,  however,  ignoring  the  fundamental 
article  of  the  Treaty  that  the  question  to  be  decided  is  a  single 
boundary  line,  and  that  the  territories  of  the  parties  to  the  Treaty 
are  thereby  recognized  as  coterminous,  advances  an  extraordinary 
proposition,  of  which  no  intimation  is  conveyed  by  the  Case,  as  to 
the  acts  of  Great  Britain  during  the  present  century  as  a  founda- 
tion for  British  territorial  claims.     It  states  (p.  108): 

"  Moreover,  there  has  been  nothing  to  prevent  the  extension  of  British 
settlement  and  control  if  the  regions  into  which  such  extension  was  made 
were  at  the  time  lying  vacant.  Territory  added  to  the  British  Colony  by 
such  extension  cannot  be  awarded  to  Venezuela,  liowever  recent  the  British 
possession  may  have  been.'' 

The  meaning  of  the  above  passage  depends  entirely  upon  the 
significance  of  the  word  "vacant."  If  by  that  word  is  meant 
merely  "  unoccupied  by  settlements,"  no  more  extravagant  pre- 
tension was  ever  made  as  to  the  right  of  territorial  extension. 
It  would  amount  to  saying  that  any  State  may  extend  its  settle- 
ment and  control  into  adjoining  regions  which  were  unoccupied 
by  actual  settlement,  irrespective  of  any  question  of  title  to  those 
r^ions.     It  would  mean,  for  example,  that  the   United  States 


I 


TREATY  OF  ARBITRATION.  11 

might,  by  means  of  settlement  and  control,  extend  the  bounda- 
ries of  Alaska,  or  even  of  the  States  lying  on  its  northern  frontier, 
by  the  mere  encroachments  of  settlers  under  its  political  control 
into  the  neighboring  territory  of  British  Columbia,  on  the  ground 
that  "  the  regions  into  which  such  extension  was  made  were  at 
the  time  lying  vacant."  It  is  an  attempt  to  make  frontiers  de- 
pendent not  upon  title,  but  upon  settlement;  and  if  such  a  theory 
were  correct,  no  State  would  be  safe  from  encroachment  unless 
its  frontier  territory  was  populated  throughout  its  whole  extent. 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  by  the  words  "lying  vacant,"  as  used  in 
the  above  passage,  it  is  meant,  "  not  under  any  claim  of  title  by  a 
civilized  State,"  then  the  proposition  has  no  application  to  the 
present  controversy,  unless,  at  the  time  of  the  encroachments, 
there  was  a  region  of  territory,  intermediate  between  Venezuela 
and  British  Guiana,  which  belonged  to  neither;  which  was  under 
no  claim  of  title  by  any  civilized  State;  or,  in  fine,  which  was 
terra  nullius. 

The  Counter-Case,  however,  leaves  no  doubt  that  of  the  two 
meanings  above  suggested  the  latter  is  the  one  intended  to  be 
conveyed.     It  makes  the  statement,  on  page  114: 

"  Great  Britain  denies  that  her  present  occupation  (extending  to  the 
Schomburgk  line)  does  in  fact  include  any  greater  extent  of  territory  than 
was  occupied  or  politically  controlled  by  the  Dutch  and  by  Great  Britain 
since  her  snccession  to  the  Dutch  title.  The  only  change  has  been  that  in 
the  last  fifteen  or  twenty  years  her  occupation  of  the  outlying  districts  has 
been  marked  by  more  complete  political  administration.  But  even  if  that 
were  not  so  Her  Majesty's  Government  would  be  entitled  to  retain  the  whole 
territory  up  to  the  Schomburgk  line,  on  the  simple  ground  that  at  the 
date  of  the  Treaty  of  Arbitration  they  were  in  possession,  and  that  the 
territory  in  question  cannot  be  shown  to  have  ever  belonged  either  to  Spain 
or  Venezuela."     (B.  C.-C,  p.  114.) 

The  above  passage  makes  it  clear  that  in  the  previous  citation 
the  regions  that  are  referred  to  as  "  lying  vacant  "  were  regions 
that  belonged  to  nobody.  The  passage  lays  down  three  proposi- 
tions: 


12  TREATY   OP  ARBITRATION. 

(1)  That  the  territory  in  dispute,  up  to  the  Schomburgk  line, 
belonged  neither  to  Spain  nor  to  Venezuela. 

(2)  That  at  the  date  of  the  Treaty  of  Arbitration,  Her 
Majesty's  Government  were  in  possession  of  it. 

(3)  That  by  reason  of  this  fact  alone,  even  without  any  earlier 
occupation  or  political  control  by  the  Netherlands  or  by  Great 
Britain,  they  are  entitled  to  retain  the  whole  territory. 

The  propositions  above  cited  amount  to  saying  that  if  the  ter- 
ritory in  dispute  was  not  Dutch,  neither  was  it  Spanish,  and  as 
certainly  no  third  party  had  a  claim  to  it,  it  was  open  to  the  occu- 
pation of  the  first  comer;  that  no  other  State  having  taken 
possession,  and  that  Great  Britain  at  the  time  of  the  Treaty  of 
Arbitration,  namely,  1897,  having  acquired  such  possession,  her 
title  is  thereby  established. 

The  above  claim  is  in  substance  a  claim  that  the  boundary  line 
shall  be  determined  not,  as  provided  in  Article  III  of  the  Treaty, 
by  the  conditions  existing  in  1814,  but  by  those  existing  at  the 
date  of  the  Treaty  of  Arbitration  in  1897.  It  ignores  all  reference 
to  1814;  ignores  the  Spanish  title  originally  established  over  the 
whole  of  this  territory,  and  the  indisputable  fact  that  both  parties 
to  the  controversy  have  from  the  beginning  regarded  the  terri- 
tory in  controversy  as  belonging  either  to  one  or  the  other. 

While  the  question  whether  any  portions  of  Europe  or 
America  were  a  subject  of  colonization  by  the  civilized  world 
may  have  been  open  to  discussion  in  the  last  century,  it  can 
hardly  be  said  to  be  open  to  discussion  now.  The  question 
whether  territory  in  a  given  locality  is  open  to  colonization  is 
a  question  of  fact,  depending  upon  whether  that  territory  has 
been  so  occupied  by  any  civilized  State  that  a  title  has  been 
acquired  thereto.  We  shall  have  occasion  repeatedly  in  the 
course  of  this  argument  to  refer  to  the  fact  that  a  large  part  of 
the  territory  of  many  civilized  States  is  more  or  less  destitute  of 
settlement.  The  fact  is  true  even  of  some  European  countries. 
It  is  also  true  of  large  tracts  of  territory  on  the  American  conti-^ 


TREATY  OF  ARBITRATION.  18 

nent.  The  title,  however,  of  the  States  within  which  such  terri- 
tories are  included  is  not  thereby  rendered  inoperative,  nor  are 
such  territories,  by  reason  of  their  unsettled  character,  the  sub- 
ject of  colonization  by  any  and  every  civilized  State  that  may 
undertake  the  planting  of  colonies.  Certainly  this  is  true  of  the 
entire  continent  of  Europe,  whether  settled  or  unsettled.  It  is 
submitted  that  as  to  the  continent  of  America,  for  very  many 
years,  it  has  been  equally  true.  To  claim  that  at  any  time,  within 
the  last  half  of  the  19th  Century,  portions  of  America,  by  reason 
of  their  unsettled  character,  were  like  the  unsettled  and  unoccupied 
parts  of  Africa,  is  to  disregard  the  evidence  both  of  history  and 
political  geography. 

It  is  not  alone,  however,  the  history  and  political  geography  of 
the  American  continent  in  general  which  are  appealed  to  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  doctrine  of  terra  nullius  thus  advanced  in  the  present 
controversy.  The  history  and  political  geography  of  this  particular 
region  absolutely  negative  such  an  idea.  Whatever  may  be  said 
i  of  the  condition  of  this  region  during  the  one  hundred  and  sixty- 
six  years  between  the  Treaty  of  Munster  and  the  Treaty  of 
London,  it  cannot  be  said  that  it  was  nobody's  territory.  The  con- 
troversy as  to  the  territory  was  a  controversy  between  the  Spanish 
and  the  Dutch  alone.  Not  a  shadow  of  claim  was  ever  put  for- 
ward to  it  during  this  period  by  any  other  State.  The  occupation 
of  it  was  either  Dutch  or  Spanish  occupation.  The  control  of  it 
was  either  Dutch  or  Spanish  control.  The  title  to  it  was  either 
Dutch  or  Spanish  title.  Any  part  of  it  that  was  not  Spanish  was 
Dutch.  Any  part  of  it  that  was  not  Dutch  was  Spanish.  Wher- 
ever the  true  boundary  line  of  the  territory  acquired  by  Great 
Britain  may  be  found  to  have  been  at  the  date  of  the  acquisition, 
that  boundary  line  was  a  boundary  between  Spanish  and  Dutch 
possessions.  It  was  not  two  boundary  lines,  separating  the  terri- 
tory of  the  Netherlands,  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  Spain  on  the 
other,  from  a  neutral  belt  of  unoccupied  territory,  of  nobody's 
property,  open  to  all  the  world,  intermediate  between  the  two. 


14  TREATY   OF  ARBITRATION. 

Wherever  it  was,  it  was  a  single  boundary  between  coterminous 
States,  and  it  is  so  regarded  by  the  Treaty. 

Every  fact  advanced  in  behalf  of  the  Venezuelan  claim,  on  the 
one  hand,  and  in  behalf  of  the  British  claim,  on  the  other,  in  the 
history  of  the  century  and  a  half  intervening  between  the  two 
Treaties  goes  to  disprove  the  existence  of  such  a  neutral  belt. 
The  determination  of  the  single  boundary  could  have  been  made 
in  1814  as  exactly  and  certainly  as  it  is  to  be  made  now.  Nobody 
but  the  two  claimants  was  concerned  in  the  dispute;  no  occupation 
was  ever  projected  or  attempted,  much  less  carried  out,  by  any 
other  State  upon  this  territory.  Spain  and  the  Netherlands  were 
left  to  fight  out  the  question  between  them,  and  upon  every  occa- 
sion upon  which  the  question  arose  it  will  be  found  that  it  was 
treated  on  both  sides,  during  this  whole  period,  solely  as  a  question 
where  the  line  of  demarcation  between  the  territories  of  the  two 
States  should  be  run. 

The  extravagance  of  this  extreme  British  doctrine  of  a  terra 
nullius  existing  as  late  as  "  the  last  fifteen  or  twenty  years  "  can 
best  be  shown  by  referring  briefly  to  the  historical  facts,  any  one 
of  which  is  sufficient  to  contradict  it,  and  all  of  which  in  order  to 
its  acceptance  must  be  totally  ignored. 

The  first  of  these  is  the  original  Spanish  title.  The  inchoate 
title  by  discovery  is  admitted  by  the  British  Case.  A  vast  number 
of  acts,  performed  by  the  Spanish  in  the  century  and  a  half  fol- 
lowing discovery  and  preceding  the  acknowledgment  of  Dutch 
title  to  Essequibo  in  the  Treaty  of  Munster,  many  of  them  acts 
performed  while  the  Dutch  were  still  the  subjects  of  Spain,  and 
therefore  incapable  of  acquiring  an  independent  title,  perfected 
the  inchoate  title  by  discovery,  as  will  presently  be  more  fully 
shown. 

The  essential  fact,  however,  which  destroys  the  theory  here 
advanced  in  the  British  Case  of  a  neutral  belt  between  the  two 
colonies,  which  was  terra  nullius,  is  that,  during  the  history  of 
Dutch  and  Spanish  control  to  the  very  time  of  British  acquisition, 


TREATY  OF  ARBITRATION.  15 

neither  party  admitted  the  existence  of  such  a  belt,  but  both,  on 
the  contrary,  repeatedly  denied  it  either  expressly  or  by  implica- 
tion. 

No  instance  can  be  found  where  the  territories  of  the  two 
colonies  are  referred  to  otherwise  than  as  being  separated  by  a 
single  boundary. 

In  1712  the  boundary  was  referred  to  in  a  session  of  the  Society 
of  Surmam,  where  it  was  spoken  of  as  "  the  boundary  in 
America  betw^een  the  subjects  of  the  States-General  and  those 
of  the  King  of  Spain."    (V.  O.-C,  vol.  ii,  p.  182.) 

In  1746  the  Commandeur  at  Essequibo  called  attention  to  the 
necessity  of  taking  action  in  reference  to  the  founding  of  a  Span- 
ish fort  between  the  Orinoco  and  Essequibo,  and  said: 

"  I  dare  not  take  anything  upon  myself,  especially  as  the  proper  frontier 
line  there  is  unknown  to  me."     (B.  C,  II,  p.  45.) 

Later  in  the  year  he  again  writes  {ib.,  pp.  46-47)  of  the  peril 
to  the  colony  "  to  have  such  neighbors  so  close  by,  who  in  time  of 
war  would  be  able  to  come  and  visit  us  overland,  and  especially  to 
make  fortifications  in  our  own  land  is  in  breach  of  all  custom.  I 
say  upon  our  own  land  -I  cannot  lay  this  down,  however,  with 
full  certainty  because  the  limits  west  of  this  river  are  unknown 
to  me." 

In  1750  he  reported  {ib.,  p.  67): 

"  Because  the  limits  are  unknown,  we  dare  not  openly  oppose  them." 

In  1754  the  Director-General  of  the  colony  is  awaiting  "  the  so 
long  sought  definition  of  the  frontier,  so  that  I  may  go  to  work 
with  certainty."    (V.  C,  vol.  ii,  p.  113.) 

In  1758,  on  the  occasion  of  the  capture  of  the  Dutch  post  in 
the  Cuyuni,  the  two  parties  to  the  dispute  laid  claim  to  the  same 
point  of  territory,  each  contending  that  it  appertained  to  its  own 
colony — a  conclusive  proof  that  the  territories  were  coterminous. 

In  the  same  year  the  Director-General  at  Essequibo  referred 
[ib.,  p.  126)  to  D'Anville's  map,  and  said: 

"  Our  boundaries  are  portrayed  on  it." 


16  TRKATY  OP  ARBITRATION. 

The  map  in  question,  which  is  shown  in  the  British  Atlas 
(map  16),  shows  a  single  boundary. 

In  1759,  the  Director- General,  discussing  the  boundary,  referred 
to  "the  Wayne,  which  is  pretended  to  be  the  boundary-line, 
(although  I  think  the  latter  ought  to  be  extended  as  far  as 
Barima)."    (B.  C,  II,  p.  180.) 

In  the  same  letter,  referring  to  the  Cuyuni  post,  he  sums  up 
the  situation  by  the  statement  that — 

"  In  the  same  way  as  they  are  masters  upon  their  territory  to  do  what 
pleases  them,  so  your  Lordships  are  also  masters  upon  yours."  (B.  C,  II, 
p.  180.) 

Here  is  no  suggestion  of  intermediate  territory. 

In  his  letter  of  May,  1Y60  (B.  C,  II,  p.  184),  the  Director- 
General  referred  to  the  line  as  "  the  dividing  boundary  in  South 
America," 

In  1767  he  said  {ih.,  Ill,  p.  141): 

"  That  we,  as  well  as  the  Spaniards,  regard  the  River  Barima  as  the 
boundary  division  of  the  two  jurisdictions,  the  east  bank  being  the  Com- 
pany's territory,  and  the  west  bank  Spanish." 

In  1794  Sirtema  van  Grovestins,  the  first  Governor-General  of 
Essequibo  after  the  final  termination  of  the  West  India  Com- 
pany's charter,  refers  (V.  C.,  vol.  ii,  p.  248),  in  a  letter  to  the 
Council  of  the  Colonies,  to  "  the  creek  of  Moruca,  which  up  to 
now  has  been  maintained  to  be  the  boundary  of  our  territory  with 
that  of  Spain." 

In  the  Instruccidn  of  Don  Jose  Abalos,  Intendant-General  of 
Venezuela  in  February,  1779  (B.  C,  IV,  p.  194),  "for  the  Settle- 
ment of  the  Province  of  Guayana,"  he  refers  to  "  the  boundaries 
of  the  said  Province  of  Guayana,  which  begins,  on  its  eastern  side, 
to  windward  of  the  outflow  of  the  River  Orinoco  into  the  sea  on 
the  border  of  the  Dutch  Colony  of  Essequibo." 

Guayana  is  specifically  named  as  among  the  provinces  of  the 
Captaincy  General  of  Venezuela,  renounced   and  ceded  by  the 


TREATY   OF   ARBITRATION.  17 

Spanish  Crown  by  the  Treaty  of  Peace  and  Recognition  between 
Venezuela  and  Spain  in  1845  (V.  C,  vol.  iii,  pp.  48-49). 

In  1801  the  Dutch  Council  of  the  American  Colonies,  with  the 
approval  of  the  Government,  secretly  sent  an  envoy  to  the  Con- 
gress of  Amiens  with  confidential  instructions  to  "try  to  have  the 
limits  between  the  Batavian  [Dutch]  and  Spanish  possessions  in 
South  America  irrevocably  defined."    (V.  C.-C,  vol.  ii,  p.  189.) 

In  1808,  during  the  British  occupation,  the  Secretary  of 
Demerara,  writing  an  official  letter  to  Gerrit  Tim  merman,  ap- 
pointing him  Protector  of  the  Indians,  names  the  district  which 
is  placed  under  his  supervision  as  "the  west  coast  of  the  afore- 
said Colony  from  the  Creek  Supename  right  up  to  the  Spanish 
boundary,  the  River  Pomeroon  being  included  therein."  (B.  C, 
v.,  p.  191.) 

Finally,  the  proposition  of  Lord  Salisbury  with  which  the 
negotiations  resulting  in  the  present  Treaty  of  Arbitration  was 
begun  is  conclusive  as  to  the  position  of  the  British  Govern- 
ment that  the  territories  of  Spain  and  the  Netherlands  were  co- 
terminous in  1814,  and  that  there  was  only  a  single  boundary  line 
between  them.  Lord  Salisbury's  proposition,  made  May  22,  1896, 
was  that  a  mixed  commission  be  appointed  "  to  investigate  and 
report  upon  the  facts  which  affect  the  rights  of  the  United 
Netherlands  and  of  Spain,  respectively,  at  the  date  of  the  acquisi- 
tion of  British  Guiana  by  Great  Britain.     .     .     . 

"  Upon  the  report  of  the  above  Commission  being  issued,  the 
two  Governments  of  Great  Britain  and  Venezuela,  respectively, 
jail  endeavor  to  agree  to  a  boundary  line  upon  the  basis  of  such 
eport."    (V.  C,  vol.  iii,  p.  305.) 

Lord  Salisbury  then  proposes  that  "  failing  agreement,  the  re- 
)rt,  and  every  other  matter  concerning  this  controversy  on  which 
jther  Government  desire  to  insist,  shall  be  submitted  to  a  tribunal 
.  .  which  tribunal  shall  fix  the  boundary  line  upon  the  basis 
such  report,  and  the  line  so  fixed  shall  be  binding  upon  Great 
Iritain  and  Venezuela." 


18  TREATY   OF   ARBITRATION. 

Whatever  inferences  may  be  drawn  from  this  proposition  of 
Lord  Salisbury  in  reference  to  other  questions,  one  thing  is 
certain:  that  it  necessarily  implied  the  existence  of  a  single 
boundary  line  in  1814,  and  as  necessarily  excluded  any  possibility 
at  that  date  of  a  "vacant"  territory  between  the  two  countries. 

The  principle  advocated  by  Lord  Salisbury  was  embodied  in 
the  Treaty,  which,  by  providing  for  the  ascertainment  of  the 
territorial  limits  in  1814  and  by  calling  for  the  determination  of 
''a  boundary  line"  between  the  two  countries,  negatives  the  idea 
that  either  in  1814  or  at  the  date  of  the  Treaty  of  Arbitration 
any  such  intermediate  belt  could  have  been  in  existence. 

From  the  earliest  consideration  of  this  question  by  Venezuela 
and  Great  Britain,  no  suggestion  has  ever  been  made  of  an  inter- 
mediate territory  between  the  two  countries.  Beginning  with  the 
earliest  negotiations,  in  1844,  between  Lord  Aberdeen  and  Senor 
Fortique,  every  discussion  has  been  on  the  basis  of  a  single 
boundary  line  between  the  two  countries.  These  negotiations 
negative  the  theory  that  any  intermediate  territory  existed  in  the 
view  of  either  of  the  parties  to  the  dispute. 

ffl.    THE  DATE  AS  OF  WHICH   THE  BOUNDARY   IS  TO  BE 
ASCERTAINED. 

The  Treaty  next  fixes  the  date  as  of  which  the  boundary  is  to 
be  determined.    It  says  (Article  III): 

"  The  Tribunal  shall  investigate  and  ascertain  the  extent  of  the  territories 
belonging  to,  or  that  might  lawfully  be  claimed  by  the  United  Netherlands  or 
by  the  Kingdom  of  Spain  respectively  at  the  time  of  the  acquisition  by  Great 
Britain  of  the  Colony  of  British  Guiana,  and  shall  determine  the  boundary 
line  between  the  Colony  of  British  Guiana  and  the  United  States  of 
Venezuela." 

The  first  point  necessarily  to  be  defined  by  the  Treaty  was 
the  scope  of  the  inquiry  to  be  made  by  the  Tribunal  in  determin- 
ing the  question  of  boundary.  The  question  here  was  upon  what 
state  of  facts  the  Tribunal  was  to  reach  its  decision.     The  history 


TREATY   OF   ARBITRATION.  10 

of  this  territory  from  its  first  discovery  to  the  Treaty  of  Arbitra- 
tion covered  a  period  of  four  hundred  years.  For  two  centuries 
and  a  half  the  Dutch  or  their  grantees  had  been  at  Essequibo. 
During  all  this  time  a  boundary  line  had  existed,  although  it  had 
never  been  laid  down.  The  line  was  necessarily  to  be  ascertained 
as  of  some  specific  date,  and  it  was  necessary  that  the  date  should 
be  named  in  the  Treaty. 

It  was  contended  by  Venezuela  that  the  question  of  title  was 
finally  settled  in  1648.;  that  the  extent  of  the  territories  of  both 
parties,  and  therefore  the  question  of  title  had  been  finally  ascer- 
tained at  that  date,  and  that  the  boundary  should  be  ascertained 
as  of  that  date. 

It  was  contended  by  Great  Britain,  on  the  other  hand,  that  as 
the  question  of  territorial  limits  had  been  seriously  affected  by 
acts  occurring  subsequently  to  the  Treaty  of  Munster,  the  bound- 
ary should  be  determined  as  of  a  later  date,  to  wit,  the  date  of  the 
British  acquisition  of  British  Guiana,  in  1814. 

The  British  contention  prevailed,  and  the  date  was  so  fixed  by 
the  Treaty.  Clearly  the  rights  of  Great  Britain,  while  extending, 
under  this  provision  of  the  Treaty,  to  the  territory  belonging  to  or 
that  might  lawfully  be  claimed  by  the  Netherlands  at  the  later 
date,  were  limited  to  such  territory,  and  could  not  be  extended  by 
subsequent  British  encroachments.  Such  is  the  plain  and  obvious 
reading  of  the  Treaty. 

Nothing  could  be  clearer  from  a  mere  inspection  of  the  Treaty 
than  the  fact  that  the  Arbitral  Tribunal  is  to  determine  the  true 
boundary  line  by  ascertaining  the  extent  of  the  Spanish  and  Dutch 
territories  at  the  time  of  the  acquisition  by  Great  Britain  of  the 
colony  of  British  Guiana;  that  the  facts  which  it  is  to  consider  are 
facts  bearing  upon  the  conditions  existing  in  1814;  and  that,  in 
considering  the  territorial  rights  and  claims  of  the  respective  par- 
ties, either  as  arising  under  law  in  general  or  under  the  specific 
rules  subsequently  prescribed  in  the  Treaty,  no  question  can  arise 
in  reference  to  encroachments  since  1814  upon  Spanish  or  Venez- 


go  TREATY   OF  ARBITRATION. 

uelan  territory  of  which  the  Dutch  were  not  in  possession  at  that 

date. 

The  Treaty  recognizes  the  fact  that  a  line  existed  as  of  right 
in  1814,  which  determined  the  possessions  of  the  two  contending 
parties  at  that  date,  and  it  is  the  extent  of  the  territories  at  that 
date  which  the  Tribunal  is  instructed  to  investigate  and  ascertain. 

Although  this  proposition  is  so  plain  that  an  extended  argu- 
ment of  it  could  hardly  be  required,  it  would  appear  to  be  dis- 
puted in  the  British  Case. 

It  has,  therefore,  been  deemed  best  at  the  outset  to  point  out 
that  the  proposition  here  contended  for  is  established  not  only  by 
the  language  of  the  Treaty,  but  also  by  the  equities  of  the  case 
and  the  history  of  the  controversy;  that  this  treaty  provision  was 
adopted  at  the  instance  and  upon  the  proposal  of  Great  Britain 
herself  and  against  the  contention  of  Venezuela,  as  shown  not 
only  by  the  negotiations  which  led  up  to  the  Treaty,  but,  finally, 
by  the  position  taken  in  the  British  Counter-Case  itself. 

1.  The  Language  of  the  Treaty. 

The  Treaty  in  express  terms  fixes  the  date  as  of  which  the 
extent  of  the  territories  of  the  two  contending  parties  shall  be 
ascertained.  That  date  is  the  time  of  the  acquisition  by  Great 
Britain  of  the  colony  of  British  Guiana,  namely,  the  date  of  the 
signing  of  the  Treaty  of  London,  in  1814.  This  date  is  actually 
prescribed  as  the  date  as  of  which  the  territorial  limits  on  each 
side  are  to  be  ascertained  and  determined,  and  the  fixing  of  the 
limits  as  of  this  date  is  the  duty  imposed  upon  the  Arbitrators  by 
the  Treaty.  Such  being  the  case,  no  acts  of  Great  Britain  either  in 
the  nature  of  settlement  or  of  control  over  territory  of  which  the 
Dutch  had  no  possession  in  1814  can  affect  the  question  before  the 
Tribunal. 

This  is  the  plain  reading  of  the  Treaty.  If  it  is  not,  for  what 
purpose  and  to  what  end  was  the  Tribunal  expressly  directed  to 
ascertain  the  extent  of  the  territories  of  Spain  and  the  Nether. 


TREATY   OP   ARBITRATION.  21 

lands  respectively  at  the  date  in  question?  The  Tribunal  is  not 
here  to  engage  in  an  academic  discussion;  it  is  constituted  to  deter- 
mine the  boundary  between  Venezuela  and  British  Guiana.  By 
the  agreement  of  the  contending  parties,  its  inquiry  is  to  be 
directed  to  investigating  and  ascertaining  the  extent  of  the  terri- 
tories of  each  as  they  existed  at  the  date  when  Great  Britain  ac- 
quired British  Guiana.  It  surely  could  not  be  the  intention  of  the 
Treaty  that  the  Arbitrators,  having  solemnly  reached  a  true  line 
upon  the  basis  laid  down  by  the  Treaty  for  the  determination  of  a 
boundary,  namely,  the  extent  of  the  respective  territories  in  1814, 
were  thereupon  to  cast  aside  the  result  of  their  deliberations,  to 
reject  the  true  line  so  ascertained,  and  to  make  a  fresh  start  on 
the  basis  of  some  other  date  vt^hich  is  nowhere  suggested  by  the 
Treaty.  To  hold  otherwise  would  be  to  contend  that  this  august 
Tribunal  was  directed  in  terms  by  the  Treaty  constituting  it  to 
reach  an  express  conclusion  which  was  not  to  be  a  conclusion;  to 
determine  a  true  boundary  line  which  was  not  to  be  a  boundary 
line;  to  consider,  by  "  investigating  and  ascertaining,"  a  state  of 
facts  expressly  defined,  which  had  been  no  sooner  considered  than 
it  was  to  be  thrown  aside  as  unworthy  of  consideration. 

Notwithstanding  this  provision,  formulated  in  language  as 
plain  as  could  be  devised,  the  British  Counter-Case  takes  the  posi- 
tion (pp.  107-8)  that,  under  Rule  (a)  of  the  Treaty,  which  provides 
that  adverse  holding  for  fifty  years  may  make  a  good  title, 

**  Great  Britain  is  entitled  to  retain  whatever  territory  has  been  held  by 
her,  or  has  been  subject  to  her  exclusive  political  control,  for  a  period  of 
fifty  years,  although  the  result  might  be  to  give  to  Great  Britain  territory 
which  had  never  been  Dutch,  and  might  even  conceivably  have  at  one  time 
been  Spanish." 

In  support  of  this  claim  the  British  Case  has  offered  an  im- 
mense mass  of  evidence,  comprising  an  entire  volume  of  its 
Appendix,  covering  the  history  of  the  British  colony  since  1814, 
and  has  devoted  Part  II  of  the  chapter  on  political  control  to 
**  British  Administration."  (B.  C,  pp.  99-112.) 


32  TREATY   OF  ARBITRATION. 

If  Rule  (a)  had  been  intended  to  apply  to  the  period  of  British 
occupation  or  of  British  rule  since  1814,  why  was  the  Tribunal  of 
Arbitration  expressly  required  '*  to  investigate  and  ascertain  the 
extent  of  the  territories  belonging  to,  or  that  might  lawfully  be 
claimed,  by  the  United  Netherlands  or  by  the  Kingdom  of  Spain 
respectively  at  the  time  of  the  acquisition  by  Great  Britain  of  the 
Colony  of  British  Guiana?" 

If  no  distinction  is  to  be  made  in  their  effect  upon  the 
boundary  question  between  acts  belonging  to  the  Dutch  period 
and  acts  belonging  to  the  British  period,  why  was  the  Tribunal 
expressly  instructed  to  direct  its  attention  to  the  conditions  exist- 
ing at  the  time  of  the  British  acquisition,  and  not  to  the  condi- 
tions existing  at  any  other  time?  Under  the  theory  of  the  British 
Counter-Case,  the  Tribunal  is  to  give  precisely  the  same  consider- 
ation to  what  happened  after  this  date  as  to  what  happened 
before,  and  the  insertion  of  tha  fundamental  instruction  in  the 
Treaty  for  the  guidance  of  the  Arbitrators  is  a  meaningless  string 
of  words,  to  be  rejected  by  the  the  Tribunal  as  utterly  vain  and 
purposeless. 

It  is  not  believed  that  the  Tribunal  will  find  itself  able  to 
adopt  any  such  interpretation  of  the  Treaty.  That  concise 
instrument  was  not  drawn  with  the  intention  that  its  clauses 
and  paragraphs  should  be  regarded  as  mere  verbiage,  des- 
titute of  meaning  and  purpose.  When  it  laid  down  in  so 
many  words  that  the  extent  of  the  territories  was  to  be  in- 
vestigated and  ascertained  as  it  existed  at  a  certain  date,  it 
meant  that  it  should  be  investigated  and  ascertained  as  of 
that  date.  When  it  prescribed  that  date  in  its  rule  of  inves- 
tigation and  ascertainment,  it  did  not  intend  to  prescribe  as 
the  rule  of  investigation  and  ascertainment  some  other  date, 
namely,  the  date  of  the  Treaty,  the  only  date  to  which  the 
investigation  and  ascertainment,  under  the  contention  of  the 
British   Counter-Case,   can  be  referred. 


I 


treaty  of  arbitration.  23 

2.    The  Equities  of  the  Case. 

The  controversy  between  the  Netherlands  and  Spain  had 
been  from  the  beginning,  and  is  stated  in  the  Treaty  as 
|being,  a  controversy  as  to  what  should  be  the  boundary  between 
ithe  two  countries  in  South  America;  in  the  language  of  the 
preamble,  "the  question  which  has  arisen  between  their  re- 
spective Governments  concerning  the  boundary  between  the 
Colony  of  British  Guiana  and  the  United  States  of  Venezuela." 
The  question  was,  and  had  always  been,  where  a  certain 
line  should  be  fixed.  Each  side  admitted,  and  each  side 
claimed,  that  at  any  time  during  the  history  of  the  con- 
troversy a  line  could  be  drawn  which  should  as  of  right  form 
the  true  boundary.  The  dispute  was  as  to  where  that  line 
lay.  The  territories  of  the  two  States  were  contiguous.  It 
was  understood  that  everything  which  was  not  Dutch  was 
Spanish;  that  everything  which  was  not  Spanish  was  Dutch;  and 
no  one  disputed  the  fact  that  the  title  was  in  one  or  the 
other  of  these  two,  or  set  up  any  third  claim  to  any  part  of 
the  territory.  The  only  question  was  as  to  the  respective  ter- 
ritories of  each  State,  or,  in  other  words,  as  to  what  was 
the  exact  geographical  location  of  the  line  which  marked  the 
limitation  of  their  coterminous  frontier. 

At  the  time  of  the  British  acquisition  of  the  colony  of  Guiana 
the  controversy  had  been  agitated  for  more  than  half  a  century. 
During  this  entire  period  acts  of  territorial  control  had  been 
repeatedly  performed  in  the  territory  in  question.  The  Dutch 
had  attempted  to  establish  a  post  in  the  territory  for  the  purposes 
of  trade  and  the  recapture  of  runaway  slaves,  and  the  post  had 
been  destroyed  by  the  Spanish  authorities  and  the  occupants  ar- 
rested and  imprisoned.  The  conflicting  claims  had  been  the  sub- 
ject of  diplomatic  correspondence  and  of  active  controversy,  and 
all  this  had  taken  place  a  long  time  previous  to  the  acquisition  of 
the  "  Establishment  of  Essequibo  "  by  Great  Britain. 


24  TREATY  OF  ARBITRATION. 

It  was  a  standing  international  controversy;  the  facts  bearing 
upon  it  were  matters  of  history;  its  notoriety  and  publicity  were 
unquestioned,  and  it  was  a  controversy  to  which  Great  Britain 
succeeded,  upon  the  acquisition  of  the  territory  whose  boundary 
was  the  matter  at  issue.  Whatever  the  territory  was  that  passed 
to  Great  Britain  by  the  Treaty  of  London  under  the  name  of  the 
"  EstabHshments  of  Demerara,  Essequibo,  and  Berbice,"  it  was 
taken  subject  to  the  Spanish  claim  as  to  the  disputed  boundary. 

At  the  time  of  Great  Britain's  acquisition  of  the  "Establish- 
ment of  Essequibo,"  a  line  existed  as  of  right  which  formed  the 
boundary  between  it  and  the  adjoining  territory  of  Spain,  although 
the  line  had  never  been  traced,  and  was  the  subject  of  controversy. 
It  was  plainly  the  intention  of  the  Treaty  that  the  determination 
of  this  line  should  settle  the  boundary  dispute.  It  was  not,  and 
could  not  have  been,  its  intention  to  allow  one  of  the  parties  to  it 
to  set  up  a  title  founded  upon  its  own  encroachments  upon  the  ter- 
ritory whose  boundary  at  the  outset  of  its  acquisition  might  thus 
be  fixed  as  of  right,  and  so  to  take  advantage  of  its  own  wrong 
committed  while  the  controversy  was  pending.  It  was  not,  and 
could  not  have  been,  the  intention  of  the  Treaty  to  fix  such  a  date 
for  the  ascertainment  of  the  true  line,  as  to  include  in  its  consider- 
ation every  act  of  trespass  which  one  party  had  been  enabled  by 
the  simple  operation  of  vis  major  to  commit,  and  to  make  these 
very  trespasses  the  foundation  of  title.  Especially  was  this  true 
when  the  parties  had  made  a  solemn  agreement  in  1850,  which 
both  repeatedly  recognized  and  appealed  to,— Her  Majesty's  Gov- 
ernment, in  one  case  at  least  as  late  as  1887, — and  which  never 
has  been  abrogated,  that  neither  should  extend  its  occupation  on 
the  territory  in  dispute— an  agreement  which  by  its  very  date  pre- 
cluded any  fifty  yeai-s'  adverse  holding  subsequent  to  the  date  of 
the  British  acquisition. 

In  the  nineteenth  century  the  period  was  long  since  past  when 
any  territory  could  be  acquired  in  South  America  by  mere 
encroachment.    Modification  of  frontiers   might  still  be  accom- 


TREATY    OP  ARBITRATION.  25 

plished  by  means  of  conquest  and  cession,  but  the  advancement  of 
a  boundary  line  by  simple  appropriation  of  the  territory  of  a 
neighbor  was  no  more  possible  at  that  date  in  South  America 
than  it  would  be  possible  to-day  in  Europe  or  in  North  America. 
It  was  doubtless  for  this  reason  that  the  Treaty  fixed  the  date  of 
the  acquisition  by  Great  Britain  of  its  Colony  of  British  Guiana  as 
the  date  to  which  the  boundary  question  should  be  referred  and 
^which  should  mark  the  epoch  whose  conditions  should  determine 
I  its  ascertainment.  The  reason  for  the  provision,  however,  is 
purely  a  philosophical  discussion.  Directions  to  the  Arbitrators 
are  stated  plainly  in  the  Treaty,  and  whatever  may  have  been  the 
reason  for  the  Treaty,  the  fact  that  the  date  was  fixed  by  the 
Treaty  is  sufficient  to  dispose  of  the  question. 

3.    The  History  of  the  Controversy. 

A  reference  to  the  history  of  the  controversy  between  Vene- 
zuela and  Great  Britain  will  abundantly  disclose  that  Venezuela 
has  always  contended  that  British  Guiana  did  not  extend  beyond 
the  actual  possessions  of  the  Dutch  at  the  date  of  the  Treaty  of 
Munster  (1648).  Her  contention  has  been  that  by  the  Treaty 
of  Munster  the  Dutch  were  limited  to  the  settlements  as  they 
actually  existed  at  that  date;  that  they  had  no  right  to  extend 
their  territory  beyond  such  limits;  that  any  such  attempted  exten- 
sions were  met  by  protests  or  resistance  on  the  part  of  Spain,  and 
were  of  no  validity;  that  the  limits  of  the  territory  which  the 
Netherlands  ceded  to  Great  Britain  in  1814  were  no  greater  than 
the  territory  ceded  by  Spain  to  the  Netherlands  in  1648.  Upon 
this  reasoning  Venezuela  had  sought  to  fix  the  date  as  of  which 
the  line  should  be  ascertained  at  1648. 

If  the  Dutch  actually  possessed  in  1648  any  part  of  the  disputed 
territory  (which  is  denied),  it  was  but  an  insignificant  part  of  the 
territory  which  Great  Britain  now  claims.  Great  Britain  accord- 
ingly rested  her  case  upon  the  proposition  that,  even  though  the 
title  of  the  Dutch  under  the  Treaty  of  Munster  was  limited  to  the 


26  TREATY  OF  ARBITKATION. 

territory  which  at  that  time  they  actually  possesed  in  fact,  she 
can  now  claim  additional  territory  by  virtue  of  a  later  occupation 
made  by  the  Dutch  between  1648  and  1814,  and  continued  long 
enough  to  ripen  into  a  title  by  prescription. 

Such  was  the  British  claim,  and  it  was  admitted  in  the  Treaty 
by  fixing  the  date  of  determining  the  boundary  of  the  territories 
at  1814,  as  against  the  Venezuelan  contention  of  1648,  and  such  is 
undoubtedly  the  law  of  this  case,  made  so  by  the  express  provision 
of  the  Treaty. 

That  this  has  been  the  history  of  the  controversy  between 
Great  Britain  and  Venezuela  from  its  commencement  in  1841 
down  to  the  signing  of  the  present  Treaty  in  1897,  is  clearly 
shown  by  the  correspondence — Venezuela  seeking  to  fix  the  line 
of  1648,  and  claiming  that  British  territory  could  not  go  beyond 
this  line;  and  Great  Britain  seeking  to  fix  the  line  of  1814,  and 
claiming  thereby  the  benefit  of  all  alleged  extensions  of  the  line 
of  1C48  caused  by  the  Dutch  occupation. 

The  establishment  in  the  Treaty  of  the  date  of  1814  as  the  date 
at  which  the  Arbitrators  should  find  the  line  was  a  diplomatic 
victory  for  Great  Britain,  and  the  recognition  of  the  principle  for 
which  she  had  always  contended.  Nowhere,  and  at  no  time,  has 
Great  Britain  ever  asserted  that  the  territory  to  which  she  now 
lays  claim  was  other  than  that  to  which  the  Netherlands  were 
entitled  at  the  time  of  the  acquisition  by  Great  Britain  of  the 
•'  Establishments  of  Demerara,  Essequibo,  and  Berbice." 

4.  The  Correspondence  Leading  up  to  the  Present  Treaty. 

If  the  language  of  the  Treaty  in  reference  to  this  point  ad- 
mitted of  any  doubt  as  to  the  intention  of  the  parties,  the  cor- 
respondence between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  which 
immediately  preceded  and  led  up  to  the  negotiation  of  the  Treaty 
would  remove  it. 

On  May  22,  1896,  Lord  Salisbury,  in  a  letter  to  Sir  Julian 
Pauncefote,  proposed  a  form  of  arbitration  of  tlie  boundary  dis- 


TREATY  OP  ARBITRATION.  27 

pute.  His  proposition  was  that,  by  agreement  between  Great 
Britain  and  the  United  States,  a  commission  be  created,  consisting 
of  four  members,  namely,  two  British  subjects  and  two  citizens 
of  the  United  States,  "to  investigate  and  report  upon  the  facts 
which  affect  the  rights  of  the  United  Netherlands  and  of  Spain, 
respectively,  at  the  date  of  the  acquisition  of  British  Guiana  by 
Great  Britain.     (V.  C.  vol.  iii,  p.  304.) 

"  This  commission."  Lord  Salisbury  proposed,  *'  will  only  ex- 
amine into  questions  of  fact,  without  reference  to  the  inferences 
that  may  be  founded  on  them;  but  the  finding  of  a  majority  of  the 
commission  upon  those  questions  shall  be  binding  upon  both 
Governments. 

"  Upon  the  report  of  the  above  commission  being  issued,  the 
two  Governments  of  Great  Britain  and  Venezuela,  respectively, 
shall  endeavor  to  agree  to  a  boundary  line  upon  the  basis  of  such 
report.  Failing  agreement,  the  report,  and  every  other  matter 
concerning  this  controversy  on  which  either  Government  desire 
to  insist,  shall  be  submitted  to  a  tribunal  of  three — one  nomi- 
nated by  Great  Britain,  the  other  by  Venezuela,  and  the  third  by 
the  two  so  nominated;  which  tribunal  shall  fix  the  boundary  line 
upon  the  basis  of  such  report,  and  the  line  so  fixed  shall  be  bind- 
ing upon  Great  Britain  and  Venezuela.  Provided,  always,  that 
in  fixing  such  line,  the  tribunal  shall  not  have  power  to  include 
as  the  territory  of  Venezuela  any  territory  which  was  bona  fide 
occupied  by  subjects  of  Great  Britain  on  the  1st  of  January,  1887, 
or  as  the  territory  of  Great  Britain  any  territory  bona  fide  oc- 
cupied by  Venezuelans  at  the  same  date."    (V.  C,  vol.  iii,  p.  305). 

"  In  respect  to  any  territory  with  which,  by  this  provision,  the 
tribunal  is  precluded  from  dealing,  the  tribunal  may  submit  to 
the  two  powers  any  recommendations  which  seem  to  it  calculated 
to  satisfy  the  equitable  rights  of  the  parties,  and  the  two  powers 
will  take  such  recommendations  into  their  consideration," 

"It  will,"  continues  Lord  Salisbury,  "be  evident  from  this 
proposal  that  we  are  prepared  to  accept  the  finding  of  a  com  mis- 


28  TREATY  OF  ARBITRATION. 

sion  voting  as  three  to  one  upon  all  the  facts  which  are  involved 
in  the  question  of  Dutch  and  Spanish  rights  at  the  time  of  the  ces- 
sion of  Guiana  to  Great  Britain.  We  are  also  prepared  to  accept 
the  decision  of  an  arbitral  tribunal  in  regard  to  ownership  of  all 
portions  of  the  disputed  territory,  which  are  not  under  settlement 
hy  British  subjects  or  Venezuelan  citizens." 

In  reply  to  this  communication,  Mr.  Olney  (after  pointing  out 
the  defects  of  the  two  commissions  proposed  by  Lord  Salisbury, 
and  their  inability  to  reach  an  effective  conclusion,  and  to  dispose 
finally  of  the  question  in  controversy  between  the  two  govern- 
ments), speaking  of  the  commission  of  four  which  was  to  investi- 
gate and  report  the  facts,  said:  "It  is  to  report  the  facts  affect- 
ing the  rights  of  the  United  Netherlands  and  of  Spain,  respect- 
ively, at  the  date  of  the  acquisition  of  British  Guiana  by  Great 
Britain.  Upon  the  basis  of  such  report,  a  boundary  line  is  to 
be  drawn,  which,  however,  is  in  no  case  to  encroach  upon  the 
bona  fide  settlements  of  either  party."    (V.  C,  vol.  iii,  p.  306.) 

Further  pointing  out  the  defects  of  the  two  commissions  pro- 
posed, and  suggesting  that  it  was  not  apparent  why  the  same 
commission  should  not  be  charged  with  determining  all  the  facts 
which  the  controversy  involved,  Mr.  Olney  declared  that  Lord 
Salisbury's  proposals,  "  looked  at  as  embodying  a  practical  scheme 
for  a  speedy  and  final  settlement  of  the  boundary  dispute,"  could 
not  be  regarded  as  satisfactory.  Further  commenting  upon  Lord 
Salisbury's  proposals,  Mr.  Olney  {ib.,  p.  308)  says:  "  In  the  opinion 
of  this  Government,  however,  such  bona  fides  on  the  part  of  the 
British  settler  is  quite  immaterial.  So  far  as  bona  fides  is  put  in 
issue,  it  is  the  bona  fides  of  either  Government  that  is  important, 
and  not  that  of  private  individuals.  Suppose  it  to  be  true  that 
there  are  British  subjects  who— to  quote  the  dispatch—'  have  set- 
tled in  territory  which  they  had  every  ground  for  believing  to  be 
British,' the  grounds  for  such  belief  were  not  derived  from  Ven- 
ezuela. They  emanated  solely  from  the  British  Government;  and 
if  British  subjects  have  been  deceived  by  the  assurances  of  their 


TREATY  OF  ARBITRATION.  29 

Government,  it  is  a  matter  wholly  between  them  and  their  own 
Government,  and  in  no  way  concerns  Venezuela.  Venezuela  is 
not  to  be  stripped  of  her  rightful  possessions  because  the  British 
Government  has  erroneously  encouraged  its  subjects  to  believe 
that  such  possessions  were  British.  *  *  *  Venezuela's  claims 
and  her  protests  against  alleged  British  usurpation  have  been 
constant  and  emphatic,  and  have  been  enforced  by  all  the  means 
practicable  for  a  weak  power  to  employ  in  its  dealings  with  a 
strong  one,  even  to  the  rupture  of  diplomatic  relations.  It  would 
seem  to  be  quite  impossible,  therefore,  that  Great  Britain  should 
justify  her  asserted  jurisdiction  over  Venezuelan  territory  upon 
which  British  subjects  have  settled  in  reliance  upon  such  assertion 
by  pleading  that  the  assertion  was  bona  fide  without  full  notice  of 
whatever  rights  Venezuela  may  prove  to  have."    (^6.,  p.  308.) 

"In  the  opinion  of  this  government,"  continued  Mr.  Olney, 
"  the  proposals  of  Lord  Salisbury's  despatch  can  be  made  to  meet 
the  requirements  and  the  justice  of  the  case  only  if  amended  in 
various  particulars. 

"  The  commission  upon  facts  should  be  so  constituted,  by  add- 
ing one  or  more  members,  that  it  must  reach  a  result,  and  cannot 
become  abortive  and  possibly  mischievous. 

"That  commission  should  have  power  to  report  upon  all  the 
facts  necessary  to  the  decision  of  the  boundary  controversy,  includ- 
ing the  facts  pertaining  to  the  occupation  of  the  disputed  territory 
by  British  subjects. 

"The  proviso  by  which  the  boundary  line  as  drawn  by  the 
arbitral  tribunal  of  three  is  not  to  include  territory  bona  fide  occu- 
pied by  British  subjects  or  Venezuelan  citizens  on  the  1st  of  Janu- 
ary, 1887,  should  be  stricken  out  altogether,  or  there  might  be 
substituted  for  it  the  following: 

"  Provided,  however,  that,  in  fixing  such  line,  if  territory  of  one 
party  be  found  in  the  occupation  of  the  subjects  or  citizens  of  the 
other  party,  such  weight  and  effect  shall  be  given  to  such  occupa- 
tion as  reason,  justice,  the  rules  of  international  law,  and  the  equi- 


no  TREATY  OP  ARBITRATION. 

ties  of  the  particular  case  may  appear  to  require."    (V.  C,  vol.  iii, 
p.  309. 

The  suggestions  made  by  Mr.  Olney  were  substantially  adopted. 
The  proposal  of  Lord  Salisbury,  providing  that  the  tribunal  should 
not  have  power  to  include  as  ten-itory  of  Venezuela  any  territory 
which  was  bona  fide  occupied  by  subjects  of  Great  Britain,  was 
stricken  out.  The  commission  of  four  was  dropped,  and  the  arbi- 
tral tribunal  was  changed  from  three  to  five.  No  change  was 
made  in  the  date  as  of  which  the  territorial  rights  of  the  contend- 
ing parties  were  to  be  ascertained. 

The  date  as  of  which  the  true  boundary  line  should  be  drawn 
was  a  vital  fact,  and  its  importance  could  not  have  been  overlooked 
by  either  Lord  Salisbury  or  Mr.  Olney.  It  must  be  ascertained 
as  of  some  particular  date.  All  the  facts  bearing  upon  the  rights 
of  the  parties  as  to  that  date  must  be  investigated  and  the  facts 
found  in  order  that  the  true  line  may  be  ascertained.  This  date 
might  have  been:  firsts  that  of  the  acquisition  by  Great  Britain  of 
British  Guiana,  namely,  1814.  The  investigation  would  then  in- 
volve the  claims  and  the  acts  of  two  Governments  not  parties  to 
this  Treaty,  namely,  the  Netherlands  and  Spain.  Under  such  an 
inquiry,  no  act  or  fact  arising  subsequently  to  1814  would  be  of 
the  slightest  materiality  or  relevancy.  All  the  investigation 
would  be  directed  to  the  history  of  the  settlements  made  by  the 
Netherlands  of  the  territory  in  question,  the  character  of  the 
government  which  they  had  established,  the  extent  of  the  terri- 
toiy  over  which  tliey  exercised  jurisdiction,  the  nature,  character 
and  extent  of  their  settlements;  in  short,  every  act  or  fact  tending 
to  prove  the  title  of  the  Dutch  to  the  territory  in  question  would 
have  been  pertinent  and  essential  to  the  ascertainment  of  the  true 
boundary  line,  as  showing  the  character  and  extent  of  the  Dutch 
possession,  which  it  asserted  adversely  to  the  prior  title  of  Spain. 

Or,  second,  the  date  of  the  inquiry  might  have  been  fixed  as 
the  date  of  the  Treaty.  Had  the  commission  been  required  "  to 
investigate  and  ascertain  the  extent  of  the  territories  belonging  to 


J 


TREATY  OP   ARBITRATION.  31 

or  that  might  lawfully  be  claimed  by  British  Guiana  or  by  the 
United  States  of  Venezuela  respectively,  at  the  date  of  this 
Treaty,"  a  different  and  much  wider  field  of  investigation  would 
have  been  opened,  and  other  and  different  facts  would  require  to 
be  investigated,  ascertained  and  determined.  The  whole  history 
of  this  territory  for  nearly  a  century  subsequent  to  1814,  all  the 
acts  and  controversies,  the  correspondence,  claims,  assertions,  de- 
nials, and  acts  of  jurisdiction  of  the  two  countries  respectively, 
would  have  been  the  subject  of  investigation,  and  would  largely 
have  constituted  the  basis  of  determination. 

In  this  correspondence  Lord  Salisbury  nowhere  suggests  that 
the  boundary  line  should  be  ascertained  as  of  the  date  of  the 
Treaty  of  Arbitration.  The  only  circumstances  arising  subse- 
quent to  1814  which  are  referred  to  as  having  a  bearing  upon  the 
question  are  stated  in  the  proviso  originally  suggested,  as  follows: 

"  Provided,  always,  that  in  fixing  such  line,  the  tribunal  shall  not 
have  power  to  include  as  the  territory  of  Venezuela  any  territory  which  was 
bona  fide  occupied  by  subjects  of  Great  Britain  on  the  first  of  January, 

1887." 

This  proposition  was  rejected,  and  at  Mr.  Olney's  suggestion  a 

rule  was  inserted  in  its  place,  which   became  Rule  (c)  of  the 

Treaty,  as  follows: 

"In  determining  the  boundary-line,  if  territory  of  one  Party  be  found 
by  the  Tribunal  to  have  been  at  the  date  of  this  Treaty  in  the  occupation 
of  the  subjects  or  citizens  of  the  other  Party,  such  effect  shall  be  given  to 
such  occupation  as  reason,  justice,  the  principles  of  international  law,  and 
the  equities  of  the  case  shall,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Tribunal,  require." 

Thus,  every  question,  both  of  fact  and  of  law,  involved  in  the 
question  of  Dutch  and  Spanish  rights  in  regard  to  the  ownership 
of  all  portions  of  the  disputed  territory  at  the  time  of  the  cession 
of  Guiana  to  Great  Britain,  was  submitted  to  the  ascertainment 
and  determination  of  a  single  tribunal,  with  the  express  provision 
that  the  rights  of  ownership  thus  established  in  one  of  the  parties 
over  any  territory  should  not  be  affected  by  the  fact  that  such  ter- 


32  TREATY  OP  ARBITRATION. 

ritory  had  subsequently  been  occupied  by  the  subjects  or  citizens 
of  the  other. 

5.  The  Position  adopted  by  Great  Britain  in  the 
Counter-case. 

Finally,  the  foregoing  contention  is  expressly  admitted  in  the 
British  Counter-Case.    At  page  114  her  position  is  stated  as  follows : 

''Great  Britain  denies  that  her  present  occupation  (extending  to  the 
Schomburgk  line)  does  in  fact  include  any  greater  extent  of  territory  than 
was  occupied  or  politically  controlled  by  the  Dutch  and  by  Great  Britain 
since  lier  succession  to  the  Dutch  title." 

This  important  admission  of  the  British  Case  shows  the  reason 
why  Great  Britain  was  willing  to  take  the  line  of  1814  as  the 
boundary  to  be  fixed  and  to  eliminate  any  acts  subsequent  to  that 
date  from  the  controversy,  except  as  provided  in  Rule  (c)  That 
Great  Britain  should  have  agreed  to  the  establishment  of  the  line 
of  1814  was  quite  reasonable,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  she  does  not 
now  put  forward  any  prescription  based  upon  the  extension  by  her 
of  that  line.  It  was  not  claimed  in  the  diplomatic  correspondence 
that  led  up  to  the  Treaty,  nor  is  it  claimed  in  the  British  Case  that 
Great  Britain  extended  the  line  of  Dutch  occupation  to  any  terri- 
tory that  she  might  now  prescribe  for  under  Rule  (a)  of  the  Treaty. 
It  was  also  well  known  to  Great  Britain  that  the  Agreement  of 
1850  cut  off  any  possible  claim  by  her  to  such  a  prescription. 
The  British  settlers,  in  whose  behalf  Lord  Salisbury's  solicitude 
was  excited,  had  not  entered  the  disputed  territory  before  1880, 
and,  so  far  as  their  case  might  be  regarded  as  matter  of  interna- 
tional consideration,  it  was  provided  for  in  Rule  (c).  It  was  be- 
cause, as  Great  Britain  herself  states,  her  present  occupation, 
meaning  thereby  her  occupation  not  only  up  to  the  date  of  the 
Treaty,  but  up  to  the  very  filing  of  the  Case,  does  not  include  any 
greater  extent  of  territory  than  the  Dutch  occupied  at  the  time 
of  the  cession.  This  is  the  fundamental  fact  in  the  interpretation 
of  this  clause  of  the  Treaty— that  British  occupation  of  the  present 


tREATY  OF  ARBITRATION.  33 

day  extends  no  farther  than  the  Dutch  occupation  which  preceded 
it.  Upon  that  statement,  made  solemnly  in  her  own  Case,  Great 
Britain  stands  or  falls.  The  fact  once  admitted  that  the  present 
occupation  is  not  in  excess  of  the  occupation  of  1814,  no  reason 
can  be  shown  for  admitting  evidence  as  to  occupation  since  that 
date. 

rv.  THE  THREE  RULES  OF  THE  TREATY. 

The  Treaty,  having  stated  the  general  subject-matter  of  the' 
rbitration  as  being  the  determination  of  the  boundary  line  in  ac- 
)rdance  with  the  extent  of  the  territories  of  Spain  and  the 
fetherlands  respectively  in  1814,  proceeds  to  lay  down  three 
Rules,  which,  as  well  as  the  appropriate  principles  of  international 
law  not  inconsistent  with  such  Rules,  are  to  govern  the  decision 
of  the  Arbitrators.     Article  IV  is  as  follows: — 

"  In  deciding  the  matters  submitted,  the  Arbitrators  shall  ascertain  all 
facts  which  they  deem  necessary  to  a  decision  of  the  controversy,  and  shall 
be  governed  by  the  following  Kules,  which  are  agreed  upon  by  the  High 
Contracting  Parties  as  Rules  to  be  taken  as  applicable  to  the  case,  and  by 
such  principles  of  international  law  not  inconsistent  therewith  as  the  Ar- 
bitrators shall  determine  to  be  applicable  to  the  case  : 

RULES. 

''  (a)  Adverse  holding  or  prescription  during  a  period  of  fifty  years  shall 
make  a  good  title.  The  Arbitrators  may  deem  exclusive  political  control 
of  a  district,  as  well  as  actual  settlement  thereof,  sufficient  to  constitute 
adverse  holding  or  to  make  title  by  prescription. 

"  {b)  The  Arbitrators  may  recognize  and  give  effect  to  rights  and  claims 
resting  on  any  other  ground  whatever  valid  according  to  international  law, 
and  on  any  principles  of  international  law  which  the  Arbitrators  may  deem 
to  be  applicable  to  the  case,  and  wliich  are  not  in  contravention  of  the  fore- 
going rule. 

"  (c)  In  determining  the  boundary-line,  if  territory  of  one  party  be 
found  by  tlie  Tribunal  to  have  been  at  the  date  of  this  Treaty  in  the  occupa- 
tion of  the  subjects  or  citizens  of  the  other  Party,  such  effect  shall  be  given 
to  such  occupation  as  reason,  justice,  the  principles  of  international  law, 
and  the  equities  of  the  case  shall,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Tribunal,  require." 


H  TREATY  OF  ARBITRATION. 

RULE  (a) 

1.    Adverse  Holding— Duration  and  Character. 

Rule  (a),  in  reference  to  adverse  holding,  is  as  follows: 

"  Adverse  holding  or  prescription  during  a  period  of  fifty  years  shall 
make  a  good  title.  The  Arbitrators  may  deem  exclusive  political  control 
of  a  district,  as  well  as  actual  settlement  thereof,  sufficient  to  constitute 
adverse  holding  or  to  make  title  by  prescription." 

The  subject  of  inquiry  having  been  broadly  laid  down  in  Ar- 
ticle III  of  the  Treaty,  namely,  that  the  Arbitrators  are  to  ''  in- 
vestigate and  ascertain  the  extent  of  the  territories  belonging  to, 
or  that  might  lawfully  be  claimed  by,  the  United  Netherlands  or 
by  the  Kingdom  of  Spain  respectively  at  the  time  of  the  acquisi- 
tion by  Great  Britain  of  the  Colony  of  British  Guiana,"  certain 
rules  are  added,  which  are  to  be  followed  by  the  Arbitrators  in 
conducting  this  investigation  and  ascertainment.  The  rules  do 
not  change  the  subject  of  inquiry  as  thus  broadly  laid  down,  but 
serve  as  a  guide  to  the  Arbitrators  in  conducting  the  inquiry. 
That  inquiry  is  as  to  the  extent  of  the  territories  of  the  two  parties 
in  1814.  Manifestly,  the  subordinate  rule  cannot,  by  specifying 
certain  applications  of  the  principle  of  adverse  holding,  reverse 
the  fundamental  definition  of  the  subject-matter  of  the  arbitra- 
tion, and  be  construed  as  enlarging  the  field  of  inquiry  thus  de- 
fined, because  the  date  named  in  the  primary  definition  is  not  re- 
peated in  the  rule  itself.  Such  an  interpretation  would  nullify  the 
fundamental  basis  of  the  Treaty. 

Inquiry  as  to  the  facts  constituting,  or  claimed  as  constituting, 
an  adverse  holding,  within  the  meaning  of  the  Treaty,  must  there- 
fore be  limited  to  matters  occurring  prior  to  1814. 

The  term  "adverse  holding"  means  a  naked  holding  or  pos- 
session, by  which  title  may  be  acquired,  adversely  or  in  opposition 
to  the  holder  of  the  prior  title.  Of  course  a  claim  of  adverse 
holding  presupposes  a  prior  title,  as  is  admitted  by  the  British 
Counter-Case,  where  the  principle  is  thus  stated  at  page  114: 


TREATY   OF   ARBITRATION.  S5 

*'  But  no  question  of  adverse  holding  or  prescription  can  arise  except 
where  one  Power  has  occupied  territory  by  right  belonging  to  the  other." 

A  plea  of  adverse  holding  is,  therefore,  an  admission  of  the 
existence  of  a  superior  title,  and  the  burden  rests  upon  the  claim- 
ant to  show  an  adverse  holding  sufficient  to  establish  a  title. 

The  adverse  holder  must  show  actual  settlement  or  exclusive 
political  control  for  fifty  years,  but  no  specific  requirement  is  pre- 
scribed in  proving  the  anterior  title.  This  is  left  to  be  determined 
by  general  principles  of  law. 

"Adverse  holding  "  is  in  general  used  of  individuals  and  as  bear- 
ing on  the  ownership  of  land  under  the  municipal  law  of  the 
State  of  whose  territory  it  forms  a  part.  In  the  Treaty,  however, 
it  is  used  of  States  and  as  bearing  upon  the  title  or  right  of  sover- 
eignty of  a  State  in  and  to  its  territory.  One  relates  to  private 
title,  or  ownership  of  the  fee;  the  other  to  public  title,  or 
dominion  over  the  territory. 

The  foundation  of  title  by  adverse  holding  is  the  actual  pos- 
session of  land.  The  fact  of  possession  is  the  determining  fact  in 
jihe  creation  of  title.  In  the  case  of  individuals,  the  fact  of  pos- 
jssion  is  one  readily  comprehended  and  recognized.  In  the  case 
»f  States,  it  is  a  much  more  complex  and  difficult  question. 
States  do  not  act  through  individuals,  but  through  governments. 
The  acts  of  individual  subjects  of  a  State  are  not  the  acts  of  the 
State.  The  declarations  of  individuals  are  not  the  declarations  of 
the  State.  The  evidence  of  possession  as  to  adverse  holding  is, 
therefore,  not  the  same  in  the  case  of  States  as  in  the  case  of 
individuals.  So  also  with  the  effect  of  adverse  holding.  The 
condition  of  private  ownership,  which  expresses  the  relation  of 
an  individual  to  his  land  as  the  effect  of  adverse  holding,  is  re- 
placed by  the  condition  of  dominion  or  sovereignty,  which  ex- 
presses the  relation  of  the  State  to  its  territory.  In  the  case  of 
States,  the  fact  of  possession  must,  therefore,  be  determined  with 
reference  to  this  effect  of  creating  public  title,  that  is  to  say, 
sovereignty  or  dominion;  while,  in  the  case  of  individuals,  it  is 


36  TREATY  OF  ARBtTRATlOK. 

determined  only  with  reference  to  the  effect  of  creating  private 
title  or  ownership. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  question  presented  in  this  arbitra- 
tion is  a  question  not  as  to  individuals,  but  as  to  States,  with  all 
that  the  distinction  implies,  the  first  point  to  be  determined  is:  In 
seeking  to  establish  the  public  title  of  a  State  by  adverse  holding 
what  acts  are  to  be  deemed  the  equivalent  of  possession  in  the  case 
of  individuals? 

The  first  requisite,  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of  the  whole 
subject,  is  that  the  act,  whatever  it  is,  must  be  a  national  act. 
The  party  here  seeking  to  acquire  title  is  the  State.  The  posses- 
sion must,  therefore,  be  the  possession  of  the  State. 

When  the  subjects  or  citizens  of  one  State  enter  the  terri- 
tory of  another  and  make  settlements  there,  their  acts  are  those 
of  mere  private  individuals.  Unless  expressly  authorized,  or 
adopted  by  the  State  itself,  to  which  they  belong,  they  remain 
nothing  more  than  private  and  individual  acts.  No  claim  of  ad- 
verse holding  can  be  made  on  behalf  of  the  State,  for  the  State 
itself  has  not  entered.  The  act  of  entry  must  be  a  national  act,  in 
order  to  be  the  foundation  of  public  title. 

The  settlement  of  persons  associated  together  upon  unoccupied 
territory  of  a  foreign  State  is  a  matter  of  frequent  occurrence;  yet 
no  claim  could  be  made  that  such  settlement  operated,  no  matter 
how  long  it  might  last,  to  transfer  the  dominion  of  the  land  upon 
which  they  settled  to  the  State  of  which  they  had  been  and  might 
continue  to  be  the  subjects.  A  claim  of  adverse  holding,  to  be 
made  by  a  State,  must  be  based  on  public  acts  of  possession  and 
control.  It  must  in  some  way  have  the  stamp  of  authority  from 
the  sovereign,  either  by  holding  under  grants  from  him  or  by 
declarations  made  by  him.  Unless  it  is  so  defined  as  an  act  of 
sovereignty,  it  cannot  become  the  basis  of  adverse  holding  to 
establish  a  sovereign's  title. 

The  act  must  also  be  done  under  a  claim  of  right,  and  a  claim 
not  only  on  the  part  of  the  individuals,  but  on  the  part  of  the  sov- 


TREATY   OF  ARBITRATION.  37 

ereign  who  seeks  to  take  advantage  of  their  acts.     This  principle 
lies  at  the  bottom   of  all  adverse  holding.     Unless  the  adverse 
lolder  enters  under  a  claim  of  ownership  he  does  not  oust  the 
)rior  holder.     He  is  understood  to  hold  under  the  prior  owner.   The 
jlaini  must,  therefore,  be  a  claim  of  territorial  sovereignty,  for 
lothing  less  would  lay  the  foundation  of  public  title,  and  it  must 
be  a  claim  made  by  the  sovereign  himself,  because  no  one  but  the 
sovereign  can  assert  such  a  claim.     The  claim,  as  a  claim  of  the 
sovereign,   must  be  open   and  notorious.     No  State  can  be  per- 
mitted to  send  its  subjects  into  the  unoccupied  territory  of  another 
State,  to  establish  themselves  there,  and  then,  after  a  long  time 
las  elapsed,  to  assert  that  their  entry  was  made  by  its  direction 
^id  under  a  claim  of  right  on  its  part  which  no  one  ever  heard  of 
jfore.     The  holding  can  only  be  computed  from  the  time  when 
|he  State  makes  the  open  claim.     What  may  have  been  done  be- 
fore that  time  goes  for  naught. 

Nor  is  it  enough  that  the  act  shall  be  in  its  inception  an  act  of 
18  intruding  sovereign  and  made  under  a  claim  of  right  on  his 
irt.  It  must  continue  to  be  the  act  of  the  sovereign.  The  com- 
lunity  so  formed  in  the  territory  of  another  by  which  public  title 
attempted  to  be  created  must  be  controlled  and  governed  by  the 
itate  which  claims  the  benefit  of  the  intrusion.  It  must  be  not 
ily  a  public  act  of  the  intruding  State  in  the  beginning,  but  it 
lust  continue  to  be  such  a  public  act.  It  can  only  keep  this  char- 
;ter  as  long  as  the  intruding  sovereign  maintains  political  control 
over  the  territory  thus  occupied.  Political  control,  therefore,  is 
an  indispensable  accompaniment  of  all  adverse  holding  by  which 
public  title  is  to  be  created. 

The  political  control,  moreover,  nmst  be  a  political  control 
over  the  territory  to  which  the  claim  extends.  It  is  not  suffi- 
cient that  it  should  be  merely  the  control  of  subjects  as  subjects 
who  happen  to  be  in  the  territory.  It  must  be  a  territorial 
control;  or,  in  other  words,  a  control  of  all  persons  within  the 
territory.     A  control  of,  or  jurisdiction  over,  the  persons  merely 


38  TREATY  OF  ARBITRATION. 

of  subjects,  as  subjects,  even  within  the  territory,  is  a  personal 
control  or  jurisdiction.  It  is  not  a  territorial  control.  Nothing 
less  than  a  territorial  control  is  sufficient  to  establish  this  form 

of  title. 

The  term  "adverse  holding"  is  a  term  familiar  to  English 
jurisprudence,  and  its  application  is  subject  to  well-detined  prin- 
ciples. As  used  in  Eule  (a),  it  has,  in  addition,  certain  express 
qualifications,  to  be  found  in  the  text  of  the  Rule  itself.  These 
qualifications  do  not  affect  the  general  principles  above  referred 
to,  which  are  inherent  in  the  meaning  of  the  term.  They 
operate  as  specific  restrictions  or  definitions  in  the  application,  in 
the  present  proceeding,  of  the  term  as  generally  undei-stood. 

In  this  proceeding,  as  already  stated,  the  question  involved  is 
not  one  of  private  title,  or  ownership  of  the  fee,  but  of  public 
title,  or  dominion  over  the  territory.  It  is  chiefly  on  account  of 
this  distinction  that  the  necessity  arises  for  the  express  qualifica- 
tions of  the  term  '* adverse  holding"  in  the  Treaty. 

These  express  qualifications  relate  to  two  facts;  first.  The 
Period  of  Duration  of  the  holding  or  possession ;  second,  Its 
Character. 

First ;  In  the  case  where  individual  title  to  land  is  created  by 
adverse  holding,  the  period  of  duration  of  the  holding  necessary  to 
make  title  is  prescribed  by  the  municipal  law  of  the  State  within 
whose  territory  the  land  lies,  either  by  statute  or  otherwise.  There 
being  no  fixed  rule  prescribing  such  a  period  in  international  law, 
which  regulates  international  controversies,  it  became  necessary 
to  assume  a  period  which  should  have  the  effect  of  creating  title, 
and  this  period  was  fixed  by  agreement  in  the  Treaty,  for  the 
purposes  of  this  arbitration,  at  fifty  years. 

Second;  The  possession  of  an  adverse  holder,  where  the  question 
involved  is  one  of  public  title,  must  be  evidenced  by  actual  settle- 
ment. 

In  the  case  of  an  individual  claiming  under  an  adverse  posses- 
sion, possession  must  be  evidenced  by  actual  occupation.     As  the 


TREATY  OF   ARBITRATION.  39 

claim  of  the  adverse  holder  is  a  claim  to  disseize  him  who  has  the 
possession,  the  burden  is  upon  him  to  establish  an  occupation 
which  amounts  to  an  actual  ouster.  The  mere  performance  of 
acts  which  are  no  indication  of  ownership  and  which  are  done  on 
sufferance  is  not  an  ouster  and  does  not  constitute  adverse  posses- 
sion. 

With  stronger  reason  does  the  same  principle  hold  in  the  case 
of  States.  The  burden  here  is  upon  the  intruding  State  to  show 
possession  by  positive  and  actual  occupation  of  the  soil  itself. 
This  can  only  be  accomplished  by  settlement. 

This  principle  is  recognized  in  terms  by  Kule  (a)  of  the  Treaty, 
which  says  that  "the  Arbitrators  may  deem  exclusive  political 
control  of  a  district,  as  well  as  actual  settlement  thereof,  suffi- 
cient to  constitute  adverse  holding."  The  meaning  of  this  para- 
graph is  clear.  It  is  that  actual  settlement  of  a  district  is  a 
necessary  condition  to  constitute  adverse  holding;  but  it  states 
that,  apart  from  the  rule  of  law  and  for  the  purposes  of  this 
investigation,  the  Tribunal  may,  in  its  discretion,  take  into  con- 
sideration another  condition  as  well  as  the  legal  one  of  actual 
settlement. 

In  so  far  as  actual  settlement  is  concerned,  therefore,  the 
Treaty  is  affirmative  of  the  general  rule  of  law.  It  is  to  be 
noted,  however,  that  in  defining  what  shall  constitute  the  test  of 
adverse  holding  by  States— what,  in  other  words,  shall  correspond 
to  possession  in  the  case  of  adverse  holding  by  individuals — the 
Treaty  has  employed  not  loose  and  general  phrases,  but  phrases 
that  are  emphatic,  well  defined  and  specific.  It  is  not  mere  pos- 
session that  will  be  sufficient,  it  is  not  even  mere  use  and  enjoy- 
ment, but  settlement,  a  thing  very  different  from  possession  or 
from  use  and  enjoyment.  Nor  is  it  mere  settlement  that  is  re- 
quired; it  must  be  actual  settlement,  and  actual  settlement  of  a 
district.  It  would  be  difficult  to  find  language  more  precise  and 
exact.  Each  and  all  of  these  terms  is  to  be  given  full  force  and 
effect  in  determining  the  merits  of  any  claim  of  adverse  holding. 


40  TREATY  OF  ARBITRATION. 

Even  in  the  case  of  individual  proprietors,  acts  are  often  al- 
lowed upon  the  land  which  the  proprietor  does  not  choose  to  con- 
sider a  trespass.  Much  more  is  this  the  case  with  reference  to 
individual  strangers  in  the  territory  of  a  State.  In  most  countries, 
even  those  which  are  most  completely  settled  and  organized,  for- 
eigners aie  allowed  to  go  and  come  at  will.  So  long  as  they  keep 
the  peace  and  do  not  violate  the  law,  they  are  not  molested  in 
any  way;  they  travel,  they  hunt,  they  fish,  they  pursue  their 
runaway  cattle  over  the  border,  they  trade,  in  many  States  they 
even  buy  land  and  build  houses,  till  the  soil,  and  use  its  natural 
products,  or  they  may  settle  as  mere  squatters,  without  being 
disturbed  or  proceeded  against  by  the  State.  If  this  is  true  of 
countries  that  are  settled,  much  more  is  it  true  of  countries  where, 
although  held  under  a  perfect  and  undisputed  title,  no  settlements 
have  yet  been  made.  The  fact  that  individuals  are  suffered  to  do 
these  acts,  that  they  are  tacitly  allowed  this  use  and  enjoyment  of 
the  territory,  indicates  no  such  territorial  possession  as  to  make 
them  adv^erse  holders,  as  the  subjects  of  a  foreign  State.  Not 
only  this,  but  a  foreign  State  may  itself,  through  its  agents, 
do  many  of  these  acts  within  the  territory  of  another  State, 
as  the  acts  themselves  involve  no  claim  of  sovereignty,  as 
well  as  private  individuals,  and  no  significance  can  be  attached 
to  the  fact  that  they  perform  such  acts.  A  Government  may 
engage  in  trade,  in  which  case  its  property  so  engaged  in 
trade  in  a  foreign  country  comes  under  the  same  rules  as 
that  of  private  individuals  (The  Charkieh,  L.  R.  IV,  Adm.  & 
Ecc.  59,  1878).  Or  it  n)ay  delegate  a  certain  portion  of  gov- 
ernmental authority  to  a  private  trading  corporation  which  n)ay 
engage  in  trade  in  a  foreign  country.  The  acts  of  such  a  trading 
corporation  which  it  performs  on  sufferance  in  the  territory  of 
another  do  not  constitute  possession  in  any  sense,  nor  can  it  claim 
an  adverse  holding  by  reason  of  such  acts. 


treaty  of  arbitration.  4l 

2.  Settlement,  as  Basis  for  Adverse  Holding. 
Such  possession,  under  the  general  rules  of  law,  can  only  be 
ei^idenced  by  settlement,  accompanied  by  the  exercise  on  the  part 
of  the  sovereign  claiming  to  hold  adversely,  of  political  control 
under  a  claim  of  right,  and  this  principle  is  recognized  by  the 
Treaty. 

The j^rs^  question  to  be  considered  is  what  is  meant  by  "set- 
tlement." 

First;  "Settlement"  implies  fixity  of  abode.  It  implies 
khe  creation  of  dwellings.  Mere  transit  over  a  territory  will 
lot  create  it.  Travelling,  exploring,  voyaging  with  whatever 
)ject,  whether  for  hunting  or  for  any  other  purpose,  is  not  set- 
tlement. Trading  in  the  heart  of  a  country,  however  extensive 
or  however  regularly  pursued,  is  not  settlement.  Still  less  is 
trading  by  water.  The  casual  use  and  enjoyment  of  natural 
products  is  not  settlement.  The  pursuit  of  runaway  slaves  or  of 
cattle  is  not  settlement.  None  of  these  acts,  even  though  by  their 
frequency  they  may  develop  into  habitual  practices,  has  any  bear- 
ing upon  the  question  of  settlement.  The  only  act  that  can  con- 
stitute settlement  is  the  establishment  of  fixed  abodes. 

Secondly ;  the  idea  of  settlement  involves  the  establishment  of 
abodes  by  persons  in  more  or  less  considerable  numbers.  It  means 
at  least  the  nucleus  of  a  permanent  population ;  persons  whose 
homes  and  occupations  are  at  that  point,  and  who  form  what  may 
have  some  claim  at  least  to  being  called  a  community. 

A  whaling  ship  voyaging  to  the  Pacific  leaves  one  of  its  crew 
on  the  Galapagos  Islands,  where  he  remains  for  a  year  or  two 
before  another  ship  takes  him  off.  The  whaler  does  not  consti- 
tute a  settlement. 

John  Sutton  goes  to  live  for  a  few  months  on  the  shell-bank  at 
Waini,  where  he  trades  with  the  Indians  (B.  C,  VI,  p.  128).  Sut- 
ton does  not  constitute  a  settlement. 

The  boy  William  Kendal,  a  servant  of  Father  Cullen,  at  the 
Santa  ftosa  Mission,  runs  away  and  lives  for  a  dozen  years  with 


43  TREATY  OF   ARBITRATION. 

the  Indians  on  the  Auka,  and  marries  a  daughter  of  one  of  the 
head  men,  and  is  discovered  there,  after  this  long  absence,  by 
some  one  who  chances  to  pass  that  way  (B.  C,  VII,  p.  238),  But 
Kendal  does  not  constitute  a  settlement. 

"A  Dutchman  had  been  eight  years  domiciled  in  the  River 
Aguirre,"  and  this  fact  is  thought  worthy  of  being  stated  in  the 
British  Case  (p.  48),  although  the  Aguirre  is  undisputed  Venez- 
uelan territory,  which  even  the  wildest  claims  either  of  Great 
Britain  or  the  Netherlands  have  never  called  in  question.  But  the 
fact  of  the  Dutchman  being  so  domiciled  does  not  constitute  the 
Aguirre  a  Dutch  settlement. 

Thirdly ;  settlement  implies,  necessarily,  the  establishment  of 
homes  by  inhabitants— dwellers.  Tlie  designation  of  a  trading 
agent  to  remain  at  some  point  for  purposes  of  traffic  in  an  un- 
settled part  of  a  neighbor's  territoiy  does  not  constitute  settlement, 
though  he  builds  a  cabin  and  occupies  it  and  derives  his  sus- 
tenance from  the  cultivation  of  the  soil.  The  Dutch  post  in 
Cuyuni,  the  only  post  which  they  ever  established  in  the  disputed 
territoiy  west  of  Moruca,  had,  therefore,  no  elements  of  a  settle- 
ment. 

Still  less  does  the  mere  erection  of  a  building  for  shelter,  to  be 
occupied  fiom  time  to  time  by  such  an  agent,  or  by  traders  or 
hunteis  generally,  as  occasion  may  arise,  fulfil  the  requirements 
of  this  term.  Thus,  the  shelter  which  Beekman  erected  in  Barima, 
even  if  it  had  been  used,  which  the  evidence  fails  to  show,  would 
have  had  no  claim  to  be  called  a  settlement. 

In  support  of  this  proposition  we  quote  from  the  British 
Counter-Case  (p.  44),  the  language  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  in  reply  to 
the  complaint  of  the  Spanish  Ambassador  respecting  the  expedi- 
tion of  Sir  Francis  Drake,  in  1580: 

"  Besides  Her  Mjijesty  does  not  understand  why  her  subjects  and  those 
of  otiicr  Princes  are  prohibited  from  the  Indies,  which  she  could  not  per- 
Buado  herself  are  the  rightful  property  of  Spain  by  donation  of  the  Pope 
of  Rome,  in  whom  she  acknowledged  no  prerogative  in  matters  of  this 


TREATY   OF   ARBITRATION.  43 

kind,  much  less  authority  to  bind  Princes  who  owe  him  no  obedience,  or 
to  make  that  Xew  World  as  it  were  a  fief  for  the  Spaniard  and  clothe  him 
with  possession:  and  that  only  on  the  ground  that  Spaniards  have  touched 
lii're  and  there,  have  erected  shelters,  have  given  names  to  a  river  or 
promontory;  acts  which  cannot  confer  property." 

A  trading  agent's  cabin,  whether  temporary  or  permanent, 
may  be  dignified  by  the  name  of  a  "  post,"  and  its  occupant  may- 
be called  a  '^  Postholder"  although,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Dutch 
called  him  merely  an  "  Outlier."  But  whatever  else  such  post  may 
be  called,  it  cannot  be  called  a  settlement.  A  settlement  may  grow 
up  in  the  neighborhood  of  such  a  post,  by  the  building  of  dwell- 
ings and  their  occupation  by  those  who  till  the  soil,  or  gather  its 
products,  or  conduct  trading  or  other  enterprises  from  that  point. 
But  the  post  by  itself  is  not  a  settlement. 

Fourthly;  a  settlement,  as  already  stated,  to  be  the  basis  of  ad- 
verse holding,  must  be  subject  to  the  political  control  of  the 
sovereign  tvho  claims  as  an  adverse  holder.  If  the  settlement 
is  detached  from  such  control,  if  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  his 
laws  and  his  government  extend  over  it,  and  extend  over  it  as  a 
portion  of  his  territory,  so  that  they  apply  to  all  persons  within 
the  limits  of  the  settlement,  whether  subjects  or  foreigners,  it  is 
not  a  settlement  within  the  meaning  of  the  law  governing  adverse 
holding. 

Much  more  strongly  does  this  restriction  upon  settlement  as  a 
foundation  for  adverse  holding  apply  in  a  case  where  the  State 
claiming  as  an  adverse  holder  not  only  fails  to  assume  the  govern- 
ment of  the  settlement,  but  expressly  disavows  it.  1'hus,  when 
the  Colonial  authorities  of  Essequibo,  in  1766,  on  account  of  the 
disturbances  which  Dutchmen  from  Surinam  had  created  in 
Barima,  forbade  colonists  to  settle  there,  it  precluded  itself  from 
any  advantage  which  it  might  otherwise  have  acquired.  Under 
its  own  law,  the  act  of  its  subjects  was  illegal,  and  while  the  law 
remained  in  force  the  Dutch  sovereign  could  not  derive  any 
dominion  from  the  act. 


44  TREATY  OF  ARBITRATION. 

Similarly,  in  1850,  when  Great  Britain  entered  into  an  agree- 
ment with  Venezuela  not  to  occupy  the  territory  in  dispute,  it 
became  illegal  for  British  subjects  to  settle  in  the  territory.  So 
long  as  that  agreement  remained  in  force.  Great  Britain  could  not 
take  advantage  of  such  a  settlement  as  an  adverse  holder,  because 
by  her  own  treaty  she  had  expressly  prohibited  and  rendered  illegal 

such  an  act. 

Fifthly;  The  settlement  must  he  actual.  In  the  case  of  individ- 
uals, the  phrase  ''actual  possession  "  is  used  in  opposition  to  "  con- 
structive possession."  Thus,  while  one  who  holds  adversely,  under 
documentary  title  defining  his  holding  by  metes  and  bounds,  is 
only  in  actual  occupation  of  a  part  of  the  land  covered  by  his  deed, 
he  is  held  to  be  constructively  in  occupation  of  the  whole. 

In  the  case  of  States,  "actual  settlement"  is  used  in  contra- 
distinction to  ''constructive  settlement,"  that  is  to  say,  the  con- 
structive extension  of  the  settlement  beyond  the  localities  of 
actual  settlement.  The  object  of  the  Treaty  in  using  the  word 
"  actual  "  is  to  exclude,  once  and  for  all,  all  loose  and  vague  claims 
to  extend  the  effect  of  such  adverse  holding  beyond  the  localities 
actually  settled.  No  constructive  extension  of  the  term,  such  as 
is  recognized  in  the  case  of  individual  possession  can  be  admitted. 
In  order  that  a  district  may  be  claimed,  the  district  must  be  act- 
ually settled.  A  settlement  at  the  mouth  or  on  the  lower  banks  of 
a  river  cannot  be  extended  constructively  to  include  the  head- 
waters of  the  river  or  its  upper  banks.  It  is  not  an  actual  settle- 
ment of  that  district.  No  claim  of  adverse  holding  can  be  al- 
lowed as  to  any  locality  unless  it  is  shown,  to  the  satisfaction  of 
the  Arbitrators,  that  actual  settlement  was  made  at  that  locality. 

To  sum  up;  in  order  to  fulfil  the  effective  conditions  of  adverse 
holding  under  the  head  of  settlement,  as  to  any  particular  locality, 
it  is  necessary  that  inhabitants  in  greater  or  less  numbers  should 
have  adopted  that  locality  as  a  fixed  place  of  abode,  and  should 
have  established  there,  their  homes  and  occupations  with  a  certain 
degree  of  permanence;  that  they  should   be  under  a  recognized 


TREATY   OP  ARBITRATION.  45 

and  actual  political  control;  and,  finally,  no  such  claim  can  be  es- 
tablished beyond  the  area  of  actual  settlement.  To  make  a  good 
title  under  the  Treaty,  adverse  holding  must  be  peaceable  and  not 
by  force.  No  holding  by  force,  against  the  protest  of  the  State 
whose  territory  has  been  seized,  will  ever  ripen  into  a  title  by  pre- 
scription. As  between  individuals  the  bringing  of  an  action 
arrests  the  running  of  the  statute.  There  is  no  tribunal  to  which 
an  injured  State  can  appeal  to  recover  the  territory  of  which  it 
has  been  deprived  by  force.  Its  maintained  protest  has  the  same 
effect  to  arrest  the  maturing  of  the  title  by  prescription  as  the 
bringing  of  an  action  by  an  individual. 

3.  Exclusive  Political  Control. 

We  have  seen  that,  both  by  the  Treaty  and  by  the  general 
principles  of  law,  the  essential  test  of  adverse  holding,  in  the  case 
of  States,  is  actual  settlement;  that  the  settlement  must  be  a 
national  act,  and  that  it  must  be  under  the  national  control. 
Without  such  control  settlement  cannot  lay  the  foundation  of  ad- 
verse holding.  It  remains  to  consider  how  and  how  far,  under 
the  Treaty,  political  control  of  itself  may  operate  to  establish  a 
claim  of  adverse  holding  without  settlement. 

Here  a  broad  distinction  is  taken  by  the  terms  of  the  Treaty. 
While  the  reference  to  actual  settlement  is  mandatory,  the  refer- 
ence to  political  control  apart  from  settlement  is  merely  permis- 
sive.    The  language  of  the  Rule  is: 

"  The  Arbitrators  may  deem  exclusive  political  control  of  a  district,  as 
well  as  actual  settlement  thereof,  sufficient  to  constitute  adverse  holding." 

The  obvious  force  of  this  distinction  between  settlement  and 
political  control  as  tests  of  the  effectiveness  of  an  adverse  holding 
to  create  a  title  is  that,  while  the  Arbitrators  are  to  be  concluded 
by  the  fact  of  actual  settlement,  they  are  not  necessarily  to  be 
concluded  by  the  fact  of  political  control,  unaccompanied  by 
settlement.  They  are  to  examine  the  attendant  circumstances 
and  conditions  surrounding    such  control,    if  thej^  find  it,   and 


46  TREATY  OF  ARBITRATION. 

are  to  accord  to  the  claim  such  weight  as  they  may  deem 
just,  having  in  consideration  all  these  circumstances  and 
conditions.  Exclusive  political  control  is  by  no  means  a  final 
test.  It  may  be  found  to  exist,  but  it  does  not  on  that  account 
necessarily  lay  the  foundation  of  title.  If,  for  example,  such  con- 
trol rests  on  the  exercise  of  force,  in  the  face  of  the  protest  of  a 
weaker  Power  holding  the  prior  title,  it  could  have,  and  should 
have,  but  little  significance  in  determining  the  question  of  adverse 
holding.  All  the  circumstances  surrounding  the  claim  are  to  be 
considered  and  weighed  by  the  Arbitrators,  and  it  is  only  to  have 
the  effect  and  significance  to  which  it  is  entitled  by  a  just  and 
equitable  consideration  of  all  the  facts  of  the  case.  To  entitle  it, 
however,  to  be  considered  at  all  by  the  Arbitrators,  it  must,  in  the 
terms  of  the  Treaty,  be  "exclusive  political  control  of  a  district.'' 

The  language  referring  to  control  is  not  loose  and  inexact  any 
more  than  the  language  referring  to  settlement.  It  is  not  mere 
influence,  or  alliance,  or  superiority,  or  leadership,  that  is  re- 
quired, but  control— a  very  different  thing  from  all  the  others. 
Nor  is  it  mere  control.  It  must  be  political  control;  and  more 
than  that,  it  must  be  exclusive  political  control,  and  exclusive  pol- 
itical control  of  a  district.  Only  if  it  fulfils  all  these  requirements 
can  it  be  the  subject  of  consideration  by  the  Tribunal  at  all;  and 
if  it  fulfils  these  requirements,  it  is  then  for  the  Arbitrators  to  de- 
termine how  far  they  will  consider  it. 

It  is  necessary  to  define  at  the  outset  the  terms  which  consti- 
tute this  remarkably  precise  and  exact  phrase  of  the  Treaty. 

''  Political  co7itroV^  means  the  exercise  of  sovereignty  over  a 
ten-itory,  through  political  or  governmental  administration. 

"  Political  control  of  a  district  "  means  the  actual  exercise  of 
sovereignty  over  that  district,  through  political  or  governmental 
administration. 

"  Exclusive  political  control  of  a  district "  means  such  an  exer- 
cise of  sovereignty  over  that  district  to  the  exclusion  of  all  other 
sovereignty. 


I'REATY  OF  ARBITRATION.  4Y 

First;  Political  control  must  he  in  the  exercise  of  sovereignty. 
The  question  which  is  being  here  considered  is  the  question 
how  far  an  adverse  holding  based  upon  political  control  ma)' 
operate  to  the  extinguishment  of  a  prior  title  and  the  ousting 
of  its  holder.  The  title  in  question,  as  ha?  been  repeatedly  sug- 
gested, is  not  the  private  title  of  an  individual  who  owns  the  fee, 
but  the  public  title  of  the  State  to  the  territory  of  which  it  is 
sovereign.  The  claim  of  adverse  holding  presupposes  the  exist- 
ence of  a  prior  title,  and  in  the  present  case  a  prior  public 
title  of  the  sovereign  existing  in  all  its  completeness.  The  ques- 
tion is  what  form  of  poHtical  control  shall  be  sufficient  to  create 
a  title  adversely  to  this  previously  existing  title  of  the  sovereign, 
i  Obviously,  the  first  consideration  is  that  the  political  control 

'     which  is  to  constitute  such  an  adverse  holding  must  be  a  control 
that  is  maintained  in  the  exercise  of  a  like  relation,  namely,  the 
'     relation  of  sovereignty.     In  this  manner  of  creating  a  title  ad- 
I     versely,  nothing  less  than  acts  which  are  both  in  intention  and 
in  the  nature  of  the  acts  themselves  acts  of  sovereignty  can  dis- 
place a  previously  existing  sovereignty.     It  is  against  the  title 
of  a  sovereign,  formally  asserted  and  maintained,  that  the  claim 
of  adverse  holding  is  now   sought  to  be  enforced.     Clearly,  no 
I     acts  can  lay  the  foundation  of  an  effective  holding  unless  made 
in  pursuance  of  an  equally  definite  assertion  of  sovereignty.     A 
claim  of  sovereignty,  therefore,  made  openly  and  notoriously,  is 
the  first  requisite  to  fulfil  the  necessary  conditions. 

Secondly;  the  acts  themselves  must  he  such  as  necessarily 
imply  sovereignty  and,  what  is  more,  territorial  sovereignty.  As 
has  been  already  pointed  out,  individual  foreigners  are  allowed, 
I  according  to  the  customs  of  most  countries,  a  large  latitude  of 
action  in  the  country  in  which  they  may  for  any  purpose  sojourn. 
The  fact  that  such  foreign  individuals  are  also  agents  of  a  foreign 
government  does  not  cut  them  off  from  the  liberty  of  action  which 
is  allowed  to  foreigners  generally.  The  doing  of  an  act  in  an- 
other's territory  by  such  an  agent,  even  an  act  which  may  be  in 


48  TREATir  OP  ARBITRATION. 

the  executiori  of  some  official  function  or  duty,  carries  with  it  no 
necessary  implication  of  sovereignty.  The  fact  that  in  doing  an 
act,  which  a  private  individual  would  equally  be  allowed  to  do,  he 
is  performing  an  official  duty  does  not  alter  the  character  of  the 
act  as  an  act  habitually  permitted  by  the  territorial  sovereign  to 
be  done.  The  latter  does  not  view  the  official  person  sojourning 
upon  his  domain  in  any  other  light  than  that  in  which  he  views 
all  other  sojourners.  Such  a  sojourner  may  be  acting  officially 
with  respect  to  his  own  Government,  but  he  is  not  acting  officially 
with  respect  to  the  Government  of  the  territory.  Consequently, 
no  implication  can  be  drawn  from  his  acts. 

The  facts  above  stated  are  important,  because  it  is  precisely  of 
acts  of  the  character  described  that  the  British  Case  on  political 
control  is  made  up.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  there  was  no  such  thing 
as  political  control  exercised  by  the  Dutch  in  the  territory  in  dis- 
pute. Individual  Dutchmen  were,  however,  allowed  a  consid- 
erable liberty  of  movement  by  the  Spanish  authorities,  and 
whether  these  individual  Dutchmen  were  merely  private  traders 
or  were  the  officials  or  employees  of  the  Dutch  West  India  Com- 
pany made  no  difference  to  the  King  of  Spain. 

These  facts  were  all  the  more  striking  in  this  particular  case 
by  reason  of  the  peculiar  character  of  the  Dutch  West  India  Com- 
pany as  a  company  at  the  same  time  engaged  in  mercantile  trad- 
ing and  in  the  government  or  management  of  a  trading  colony. 
A  trading  company  clothed,  as  was  this  corporation,  on  the  one 
hand,  with  certain  delegated  powers  of  government  to  run  a 
colony  and,  on  the  other,  occupied  with  the  question  of  trade 
and  trade  profits  as  a  private  corporation,  stands  in  a  peculiar 
condition.  It  is  in  great  danger  of  mixing  up  its  two  func- 
tions. It  may,  for  instance,  have  a  certain  territorial  scope  for  its 
trade,  which  of  couree  does  not  imply  sovereignty  in  any  sense. 
It  may  thus  extend  its  trade  on  its  neighbor's  territory.  It  also 
regulates  the  trade  of  its  colonists,  who  are  quasi-subjects;  and  it 
regulates  their  trade  not  only  in  the  colony,  but  out  of  the  colony, 


TREATY   OF  ARBITRATION.  49 

and  particularly  it  regulates  their  competition  outside  of  the 
colony  with  its  own  trade  outside.  It  uses  its  powers  of  govern- 
ment to  back  up  its  functions  of  trade.  The  consequence  is  that 
it  exercises  a  personal  jurisdiction  over  its  subjects  on  foreign 
territory  in  connection  with  matters  of  trade  more  extensive  than 
that  which  Governments  ordinarily  attempt  to  exercise.  Having 
begun  with  matters  of  trade,  it  extends  this  regulation  and  juris- 
diction to  other  matters,  and  it  is  all  the  more  ready  to  do  this  in 
that  the  colonial  character  of  its  enterprise  gives  it  large  powers 
and  supervision  over  the  persons  and  occupations  of  its  colonists. 

Thus,  the  West  India  Company,  through  the  Colonial  author- 
ities, was  in  the  habit  of  sending  its  employees,  who  were  chiefly 
old  negro  slaves,  to  trade  in  the  neighboring  wilderness  with  the 
Indians.  It  also  had  Dutch  employees  who  did  the  same  business. 
These  employees  were  likewise  sometimes  used  to  pursue  and  cap- 
ture runaway  slaves,  as  they  would  cattle,  upon  foreign  territory 
and  to  bring  them  back. 

There  was  also  a  class  of  employees,  a  degree  higher  in  the 
official  scale  than  the  roving  traders  or  outrunners.  These  were 
called  Outliers,  a  name  which  is  generally  translated  in  the  evi- 
dence, Postholders.  An  outlier  was  sent  to  a  certain  point  to  look 
after  the  trade  at  that  point,  to  give  information  of  the  move- 
ments of  runaways  and  capture  them  if  possible,  and  to  keep  the 
Colonial  authorities  informed  generally  of  what  was  going  on. 

There  is  really  only  one  case,  that  of  the  post  in  Cuyuni, 
which  has  any  material  bearing  upon  the  boundary  dispute,  and 
nothing  in  the  nature  of  sovereignty  could  be  attributed  to  the 
Outlier  who  was  stationed  there. 

The  Colonial  authorities  also  maintained  close  supervision  over 
the  colonists.  Regulations  and  laws  were  made  which  the 
colonists  were  obliged  to  observe,  not  only  in  the  colony  itself, 
but  when  they  went  into  the  adjoining  territory  of  Spain.  This 
personal  jurisdiction  over  the  Dutch  colonists  was  not  an  exercise 
of  sovereignty  over  the  territory  in  question,  because  it  related 


50  TREATY   OF  ARBITRATION. 

solely  to  Dutch  subjects  and  followed  them  wherever  they  went. 
There  is  not  an  instance  in  this  whole  controversy  of  the  exercise, 
or  attempted  exercise,  west  of  Moruca,  of  2Uiy  control  over  any- 
body but  Dutchmen. 

Thirdly;  Political  control  requires  that  there  should  be  an 
actual  exercise  of  sovereignty  through  the  medium  of  government. 

While  it  may  not  be  necessary  that  the  government  should  be 
of  an  elaborate  or  highly  organized  type,  sovereignty  must 
actually  be  exercised  through  governmental  agents.  This  does 
not  mean  that  they  must  necessarily  be  the  ordinary  civil  agents 
of  government.  Political  control  may  be  exercised  by  military  as 
well  as  by  civil  agents,  but  sovereignty  must  be  actually  exercised 
by  agents,  and  these  agents  must  be  governmental  agents. 
Unless  government  officers  are  actually  and  effectively  controlling 
a  district  there  is  no  political  control  of  that  district  within  the 
meaning  of  this  rule  of  the  Treaty. 

The  definition  given  above  requires  that  the  control  be  exer- 
cised over  the  territory  as  territory,  and  upon  all  persons  within 
it,  whether  subjects  or  foreigners.  The  control  which  is  exer- 
cised only  over  subjects  sojourning  within  a  given  territory  is 
not  political  control  over  that  territory.  It  is  merely  a  personal 
control  over  subjects  irrespective  of  territorial  control.  If  it  ap- 
pears as  to  this  territory  in  dispute,  that  one  Power  exercised 
control  over  all  persons  within  the  territory,  and  that  the  other 
did  not,  the  first  alone  exercised  political  control  over  the 
territory.  The  performance  of  acts  connected  with  trade  in  the 
territory  has  of  itself  no  significance,  because  it  is  no  indication  of 
political  control;  but  the  exclusion  of  persons,  and  especially  of 
persons  other  than  subjects,  from  the  performance  of  such  acts  of 
trade  is  an  indication  of  political  control.  It  is  not  necessary  in 
order  to  political  control  that  this  right  of  exclusion  shall  be 
exercised  at  all  times  and  in  all  places  any  more  than  it  is  neces- 
sary in  order  to  assert  political  control  over  the  territory  of  any 
civilized  State  that  the  Government  should  exclude  foreigners  or 


TREATY   OF  ARBITRATION.  61 

refuse  to  allow  them  to  trade  there.  But  if  it  does  exclude  them, 
and  they  assent  to  the  exclusion,  it  is  an  assertion  on  the  one  part 
and  an  admission  on  the  other  of  territorial  sovereignty  and 
political  control  in  the  Government  that  exercises  the  riglit  of 
exclusion. 

Of  course  in  an  unsettled  territory  there  will  be  far  less  to  in- 
dicate political  control  than  in  a  settled  territory.  But  that  can- 
not affect  the  question  of  title.  If  political  control  is  to  be  proved 
in  such  a  territory,  the  acts  which  indicate  it  will  doubtless  be  less 
numerous  and  less  extensive  than  in  fully  organized  districts  con- 
taining a  settled  population.  The  tests  of  political  control  in  such 
a  district  are  the  actual  exercise  of  a  right  to  exclude  foreigners 
therefrom,  and  to  control  the  actions  of  foreigners  as  well  as  sub- 
jects therein.  The  apprehension  of  foreigners  for  violations  of 
governmental  regulations  in  such  territory  is  an  act  of  great 
significance.  On  the  other  hand,  the  fact  that  a  sovereign  issues 
regulations  as  to  acts  of  his  own  subjects  in  a  territory  does  not 
constitute  an  exercise  of  political  control  therein,  especially  when 
he  has  no  governmental  agencies  to  enforce  such  regulations,  and 
when,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  such  regulations  are  not  enforced  by  him. 

The  enforcing  of  governmental  regulations  in  an  unsettled 
'  territory  is  not  necessarily  in  the  hands  of  civil  officers.  It 
is  enough  that  it  is  in  the  hands  of  governmental  officers.  The 
distinction  between  the  military  police  and  civil  police  does  not 
by  any  means  universally  exist  even  in  civilized  countries,  and 
in  wild  and  unsettled  colonies  it  is  almost  wholly  obliterated. 
The  exercise  of  control  may  therefore  be  in  the  hands  of  military 
officers,  coast  guard  officers  and  the  like,  as  well  as  in  the  hands 
of  civil  police.  They  are  agents  of  the  government  charged  with 
the  duty  of  enforcing  the  regulations  of  the  government,  and  they 
have  the  ability  to  enforce  them  and  do,  in  fact,  enforce  them. 

The  question  further  arises  in  a  country  in  the  unsettled  parts 
of  America  as  to  whether  control  is  exercised  over  the  Indians,  and 
in  what  such  control  consists. 


52  TREATY  OF  ARBITRATION. 

The  territory  ia  question,  during  the  greater  part  of  its  his- 
tory, while  Spain  asserted  over  it  the  rights  of  a  sovereign  and 
while  it  was  the  resort  of  Spaniards  in  great  numbers  for  the  pur- 
pose of  trading  with  the  Indians,  gold  seeking,  hunting  and  other 
purposes,  was  in  large  part  unsettled.  A  considerable  part  of  the 
forests  which  covered  it  was  traversed  at  will  by  roving  tribes  of 
Indians,  who,  like  many  othei-s  of  their  race,  had  no  regular 
abode.  They  were  the  natives  of  the  soil,  the  aborigines  who, 
under  the  principles  which  have  universally  governed  the  relations 
of  the  civilized  settler  and  the  native  American,  remained  in  the 
territory  on  sufferance  without  political  rights  and  with  only  such 
liberty  of  action  and  movement  as  the  dominant  race  saw  fit  to 
allow. 

Whatever  may  be  assumed  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  Treaty  as 
to  exclusive  political  control  over  a  district,  certainly  the  rela- 
tions of  the  Government  setting  up  a  claim  of  such  control  over 
these  roving  bands  of  Indians  could  have  no  bearing  upon  the 
question.  The  claim  is  made  in  the  British  Case  and  dwelt  on  at 
considerable  length  that,  from  time  to  time,  the  colonists  of  Esse- 
quibo  entered  into  various  agreements  with  some  of  these  tribes 
and  exercised  some  influence  over  their  predatory  occupations  and 
over  the  choice  of  their  chiefs;  but  such  interference  and  in- 
fluence, could  not,  from  the  nature  of  things,  constitute  a  politi- 
cal control.  In  the  first  place,  the  tribes  were  wandering  in- 
habitants of  the  forest,  and  could  not  be  said  to  belong  to 
any  particular  district.  In  the  second  place,  the  tribes  of  Indians 
had  not,  and  could  not  have,  any  political  status.  Still  less 
could  they  have  any  international  status.  International  law 
deals  only  with  civilized  States  and  their  relations,  and  a  question 
of  disputed  sovereignty  arising  between  two  such  States  can  be 
in  nowise  affected  by  the  attitude  which  some  particular  band  of 
Indians,  from  considerations  of  fear,  convenience,  or  temporary 
interest,  may  assume  towards  some  particular  colonists.  The 
natives  certainly  had  no  political  control  over  a  district  them- 


TREATY   OF   ARBITRATION.  53 

selves,  still  less  could  the  acquisition  of  influence  over  them 
be  construed  as  transmitting  through  them  a  political  control, 
which  they  did  not,  and  could  not,  themselves  possess.  Influence 
over  and  alliance  with  the  Indians  does  not  amount  to  political 
control. 

Fourthly;  In  order  to  create  adverse  holding  of  a  district, 
the  political  control  must  he  exercised  over  the  district.  As  with 
the  question  of  settlement,  so  with  the  question  of  political  con- 
trol; whatever  may  be  its  significance,  it  can  only  extend 
over  the  territory  where  it  is  actually  exercised.  No  control  ex- 
ercised only  within  a  part  of  a  district  can  be  extended  construct- 
ively over  the  whole  district.  The  establishment  even  of  complete 
forms  of  government,  fully  equipped  with  all  governmental  ma- 
chinery, at  one  point,  although  constituting  the  exercise  of  politi- 
cal control  at  that  point,  cannot  be  construed  to  extend  any 
further  than  the  limits  of  the  control  actually  exercised.  No 
claim  of  adverse  holding  at  any  locality,  based  on  political  con- 
trol, can  be  allowed,  unless  the  Arbitrators  are  satisfied  that 
political  control  was  exercised  throughout  the  locality.  It  follows 
that,  under  the  Treaty,  no  claims  can  be  sustained  on  the  ground 
of  the  exercise  of  political  control  to  territories  of  vague  and  ill- 
defined  boundaries,  where  there  is  no  area  that  can  be  ascertained 
specifically  over  which  the  political  control  is  exercised. 

Fifthly;  Political  control  must  he  exclusive.  In  order  to  have 
significance  in  this  proceeding,  as  the  equivalent  of  adverse  hold- 
ing, political  control,  or  the  exercise  of  sovereignty  through  political 
or  governmental  administration,  must  be  to  the  exclusion,  during 
the  entire  period,  of  all  other  sovereignty  or  control.  No  acts  or 
classes  of  acts  which  are  equally  performed  in  the  territory  in 
question  by  both  parties  can  have  any  bearing  upon  the  claim  of 
adverse  holding.  The  exercise  of  control  in  the  locality,  during 
the  period,  by  the  party  holding  the  anterior  title  puts  an  end  to 
the  claim  as  to  that  locality. 


54  TREATY   OF   ARBITRATION. 

The  above  principles  apply  equally  to  prescription.  Prescrip- 
tion is  that  operation  of  law  by  which  title  is  established:  (1)  by 
lapse  of  time,  where  the  title,  although  its  origin  is  unknown,  has 
been  held  so  long  that  the  noeraory  of  man  runneth  not  to  the 
contrary,  or,  in  other  words,  where  the  foundation  of  the  title  is 
lost  in  the  mists  of  antiquity;  (2)  where,  by  lapse  of  time,  a 
wrongful  possession  comes  to  have  the  force  of  a  rightful  title. 

The  first  meaning  obviously  has  no  application  here.  In  the 
second  meaning,  "prescription"  is  synonymous  with  "adverse 
holding,"  and  is  governed  by  the  same  rules. 

RULE  (b) 

The  effect  to  he  given  to  general  principles  of  international 

law  in  the  determination  of  the  true  boundary  line  is  thus  stated 

in  Rule  (6)  of  the  Treaty: 

**  The  Arbitrators  may  recogaize  and  give  effect  to  rights  and  claims 
resting  on  any  other  ground  whatever  valid  according  to  international  law, 
and  on  any  principles  of  international  law  which  the  Arbitrators  may  deem 
to  be  applicable  to  the  case,  and  which  are  not  in  contravention  of  the  fore- 
going rule.'*     [Rule  d\. 

The  only  class  of  rights  and  claims  referred  to  in  the  present 
controversy  are  the  territorial  rights  and  claims  of  the  parties  to 
this  Treaty,  in  so  far  as  they  affect  the  primary  question  which 
the  Arbitrators  are  directed  by  the  Treaty  to  decide.  The  Arbi- 
trators are  to  recognize  and  give  effect  to  all  such  territorial  rights 
and  claims  resting  on: 

(a);  any  ground  whatever  valid  according  to  international 
law,  and 

(6);  any  principles  of  international  law  which  the  Arbitrat- 
ors may  deem  to  be  applicable  to  the  case,  and  which 
are  not  in  contravention  of  Rule  (a). 

As  the  Treaty  at  the  outset  prescribes  the  date  as  of  which  the 
extent  of  the  territories  of  the  respective  parties  is  to  be  deter- 
mined, the  clause  now  under  consideration  must  be  read  in  con- 


TREATY   OF  ARBITRATION.  55 

nection  with  that  statement.  As  in  the  case  of  Rule  (a),  it  is  only 
as  determining  the  question  of  the  boundary  of  1814  that  these 
territorial  rights  and  claims  are  to  be  considered,  for  it  is  clearly 
not  the  intention  of  the  Treaty  that  the  three  subsidiary  Rules 
should  extend  the  limits  of  the  subject  matter  of  the  controversy 
beyond  the  date  fixed  by  Article  III,  except  in  so  far  as  said  Rules 
direct  the  consideration  of  a  different  date. 

Under  Rule  (6),  the  Tribunal  is  directed  to  recognize  as  valid 
^any  title  which  is  valid  under  the  rules  of  international  law,  ex- 
jpt  in  so  far  as  Rule  (a)  may  establish  a  different  principle. 
The  only  claim  of  title  which  has  so  far  been  specifically  re- 
ferred to  by  the  Treaty  is  title  under  an  adverse  holding,  which 
m  never  be  an  original  title.  Rule  (6)  admits  the  proof  of 
original  titles,  and  directs  the  Tribunal  to  consider  any  claim  of 
dtle,  including,  of  course,  such  original  titles  as  they  may  deem 
ralid  under  international  law  and  not  in  contravention  of  Rule 
i).  It  also  introduces  such  rules  of  international  law  as  may  be 
Bed  to  define  the  terms  "adverse  holding  "  or  "  prescription." 
The  original  title  under  which  the  whole  territory  in  dispute 
claimed  by  Venezuela  is  the  title  by  which  the  whole  of  Guiana 
rom  the  Orinoco  to  the  Amazon  was  originally  held  by  Spain. 
Fnderthe  principles  of  international  law,  discovery  accompanied  by 
itention  to  acquire  possession  creates  an  inchoate  title.  Where 
lis  inchoate  title  is  followed  by  occupation,  consisting  of  acts  of 
lilitary  or  political  control,  explorations,  surveys,  establishment 
)f  trading  posts,  grants  of  land  to  subjects,  charters  and  othet 
;ts  indicative  of  possession  or  control,  the  title  by  discovery 
jcomes  complete.  The  original  title  of  Spain,  which  Venezuela 
IS  a  party  to  this  controversy  now  sets  up,  is  a  title  by  a  perfected 
liscovery,  and  the  principles  of  law  governing  the  establishment 
}f  such  a  title  are  to  be  applied  in  the  present  case. 

The  original  title  of  the  Dutch,  on  the  other  hand,  to  the 
"Establishment  of  Essequibo "  is  a  title  based  upon  conquest 
from  Spain  and   the  cession   of  the  territory  by  Spain  to  th^ 


56  TREATY  OF   AKBITRATION. 

Netherlands  under  the  Treaty  of  Munster;  and  the  validity  of 
such  titles  and  the  extent  to  which  they  are  to  be  established  are 
matters  to  be  determined  by  the  Arbitrators  who,  in  making  their 
determination,  are  to  be  governed  by  the  principles  of  international 
law  that  may  be  applicable  to  the  case.  The  only  express  proviso 
which  is  attached  to  the  application  of  these  principles  is  that  they 
shall  not  be  in  contravention  of  Rule  (a).  Where  a  title  is  sought 
to  be  established  as  against  an  original  title,  on  the  basis  of  adverse 
holding,  no  claim  can  be  considered  unless  its  duration  is  for  the 
period  of  fifty  years,  and  unless  it  fulfils  in  other  respects  the 
requirements  of  that  Rule  and  of  the  general  rules  of  international 
law. 

RULE  (c) 

The  adjustment  of  the  relations  between  the  territorial  sover- 
eign and  subjects  of  the  other  party  who  may  be  found  in  occupa- 
tion of  the  territory  of  such  sovereign  is  covered  by  Rule  (c)  of  the 
Treaty,  which  is  as  follows: 

"In  determining  the  boundary-line,  if  territory  of  one  party  be  found 
by  the  Tribunal  to  have  been  at  the  date  of  this  Treaty  in  the  occupation 
of  the  subjects  or  citizens  of  the  other  party,  such  effect  shall  be  given  to 
such  occupation  as  reason,  justice,  the  princijiles  of  international  law,  and 
the  equities  of  the  case  shall,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Tribunal,  require." 

This  Rule  recognizes  the  fact  that  when  the  territories  of  each 
party  shall  have  been  ascertained  by  the  defining  of  the  true  bound- 
ary line,  it  might  be  found  that  the  subjects  or  citizens  of  one  party 
were  at  the  date  of  the  treaty  actually  settled  upon  territory  thus 
ascertained  to  belong  to  the  other.  The  question  would  then  arise 
how,  with  the  greatest  fairness  both  to  the  State  in  whose  tenitory 
such  settlers  were  found  and  to  the  settlers  themselves,  an  adjust- 
ment should  be  made  of  the  relations  between  the  two;  and  it  was 
accordingly  provided  in  the  Treaty  that  the  Tribunal  should  itself 
finally  adjust  these  relations,  upon  considerations  of  reason,  jus- 
tice, the  principles  of  international  law  and  the  equities  of  the 
particular  case. 


TREATY  OF  ARBITRATION.  67 

Jt  is  not  stated  by  the  Treaty  what  form  of  adjustment,  if 
any,  is  to  be  adopted  by  the  Arbitrators  in  carrying  out  the  pro- 
visions of  Rule  (c).  The  whole  matter  is  left  to  their  judgment  and 
discretion.  It  is  clearly  contemplated  by  the  Rule  that  some  pro- 
vision shall  be  made  to  settle  the  relations  of  both  parties,  but  that, 
as  far  as  the  status  of  the  territory  upon  which  such  cases  arise  is 
concerned,  the  territory  having  once  been  fixed  by  the  determina- 
tion of  the  boundary  line,  the  existence  of  such  cases  as  are  re- 
fen-ed  to  in  Rule  (c)  cannot  cause  any  modification  of  the  line. 
The  case  only  arises,  in  fact,  where  the  subjects  or  citizens  of  one 
State  are  found  in  the  territory  of  the  other,  as  determined  by 
the  fixing  of  the  boundary  line,  and  the  language  of  the  Rule  in 
•itself  negatives  the  idea  that  the  fact  of  their  settlement  there 
shall  alter  the  political  status  of  the  territory. 

That  this  is  the  correct  interpretation  of  the  Rule  is  confirmed 

by  the  provisions  of  Rule  (a).     Under  Rule  (a),  it  is  provided  that 

.adverse  holding  shall  only  be  established  by  settlement  or  exclusive 

[political  control  for  fifty  years.     If  it  were  the  intention  of  Rule 

[c]  that  the  occupation  therein  referred  to  should  have  the  effect 

of  deflecting  the  boundary  line,  then  Rule  (a)  would  become  mean- 

tingless,  and  the  possession  of  fifty  years  would  be  no  better  than 

[the  possession  of  yesterday.     Such  a  construction  of  the  Treaty 

[would  virtually  read  the  fifty-year  provision  entirely  out  of  it.     It 

[would,  in  substance  have  the  effect  of  saying  that  where  the  sub- 

h'ects  or  citizens  of  one  party  were  found  in  the  territory  of  the 

|Other  party  that  fact  of  itself  should  put  an  end  to  its  status  as 

the  territory  of  such  other  party — a  conclusion  which  is  obviously 

untenable. 

That  such  is  the  meaning  of  the  Rule  is  further  confirmed  by 

the  negotiations  which  led  up  to  it.     The  proposition  was  origi- 

lally  made  by  Lord  Salisbury  that  while  the  line  w^as  to  be  deter- 

[mined  by  the  Commission  as  of  the  date  of  1814,  no  territory 

jhould  be  included  as  Venezuelan  which  was  found  in  the  occupa- 


{}g  TREATY  OF   ARBITRATION. 

tion  of  British  subjects  on  January  1,  188Y.    The  exact  language 
of  his  proviso  is  as  follows: 

•*  Provided,  always,  that  in  fixing  such  line  the  tribunal  shall  not  have  the 
power  to  include  as  the  territory  of  Venezuela  any  territory  which  was  bona 
fide  occupied  by  subjects  of  Great  Britain  on  the  first  of  January,  1887." 
(V.  0.,  vol.  iii,  p.  305.) 

This  proposition  was  rejected,  Venezuela  refusing  to  agree  that 
the  line  of  1814,  having  once  been  ascertained,  should  be  modified 
by  the  mere  fact  of  occupation  of  what  was  shown  thereby  to  be 
Venezuelan  territory  by  British  settlers  in  1887. 

The  grounds  of  the  objection  to  Lord  Salisbury's  proposition 
are  thus  stated  by  Mr.  Olney,  who  was  conducting  the  negotiation: 

"The  decisive  objection  to  the  proposals  is  that  it  appears  to  be  a  funda- 
mental condition  that  the  boundary  line,  decided  to  be  the  true  one  by  the 
arbitrators,  shall  not  operate  upon  territory  bona  fide  occupied  by  a  British 
subject  January  1,  1887 — shall  be  deflected  in  every  such  case  so  as  to  make 
such  territory  part  ot  British  Guianu.  It  is  true  that  the  same  rule  is  to 
apply  in  the  case  of  territory  bona  fide  occupied  by  a  Venezuelan  January  1, 
1887.  But,  as  Great  Britain  asks  for  the  rule  and  Venezuela  opposes  it, 
the  inevitable  deduction  coincides  with  the  undisputed  fact — namely,  that 
the  former's  interest  is  believed  to  be  promoted  by  the  rule,  while  the 
latter's  will  be  prejudiced. 

"  The  true  question,  therefore,  is,  is  the  rule  just  in  itself — without 
reference  to  its  actual  working — so  that  Great  Britain  has  a  right  to  impose 
her  will  upon  Venezuela  in  the  matter?  How  this  question  can  be 
answered  in  the  affirmative  it  is  most  difficult  to  perceive,  and  is  not  even 
attempted  to  be  shown  by  the  despatch  itself.  It  is  a  rule  which  is  cer- 
tainly without  support  in  any  principle  of  international  law,  or  in  any 
recognized  international  usage."    (V.  C,  vol.  iii,  p.  307.) 

"Venezuela  is  not  to  bo  stripped  of  her  rightful  possessions  because  the 
British  Gk)vernment  has  erroneously  encouraged  its  subjects  to  believe  that 
such  possessions  were  British."    (tJ.,  p.  308.) 

♦  *»*♦* 

•*  The  proviso  by  which  the  boundary  line  as  drawn  by  the  arbitral 
tribunal  of  three  is  not  to  include  territory  bona  fide  occupied  by  British 
bubjects  or  Venezuelan  citizens  on  the  1st  of  January,  1887,  should  be 
stricken  out  altogether,  or  there  might  be  substituted  for  it  the  following: 


TREATY   OF  ARBITRATION.  69 

Provided,  however,  that,  in  fixing  snch  line,  if  territory  of  one  party  he 
found  in  the  occupation  of  the  subjects  or  citizens  of  the  other  party,  such 
weight  and  effect  shall  be  given  to  such  occupation  as  reason,  justice,  the 
rules  of  international  law,  and  the  equities  of  the  particular  case  may 
appear  to  require."     (ib.,  p.  309.) 

The  contention  of  Mr.  Olney  that  the  proposal  of  Loi  d  Salis- 
bury was  unjust  to  Venezuela,  in  that  it  provided  that  where 
territory  was  bona  fide  occupied  by  subjects  of  Great  Britain,  "  the 
boundary  line  shall  be  deflected  in  every  such  case  so  as  to  make 
such  territory  part  of  British  Guiana,"  prevailed,  and  the  present 
rule  was  inserted,  which  provided  for  the  claims  not  only  of 
British  occupants  in  1887,  but  the  claims  of  British  occupants 
down  to  the  date  of  the  Treaty.  Instead,  however,  of  a  provision 
that  such  occupancy  should  deprive  Venezuela  of  teriitory  which 
might  be  ascertained  to  be  hers  by  the  line  of  1814,  the  provision 
in  the  Treaty  laid  down  that  the  Tribunal  should  itself  adjust  the 
relations  between  these  British  occupants  and  the  Venezuelan 
Government  on  considerations  of  reason,  justice,  the  principles  of 
international  law,  and  the  equities  of  the  case. 

Assuming  that  the  facts  will  disclose  cases  in  which  British 
subjects  have  settled  on  what  is  found  to  be  Venezuelan  territory, 
the  question  arises  as  to  what  adjustment  shall  be  made  of  their 
relations  with  the  Venezuelan  Government.  If  such  settlers  are 
mere  squatters,  holding  under  no  grant,  their  cases  require  no 
consideration.  They  would  not  be  entitled  to  recognition  even  by 
Great  Britain,  much  less  would  there  be  any  obligation  upon  Ven- 
ezuela to  recognize  them.  If,  however,  such  occupants  hold 
under  grants  from  the  British  Crown,  it  would  seem  that  such 
grants  would  become  invalid  as  being  void  ab  initio^  unless  con- 
firmed by  Venezuela.  What  is  to  be  the  validity  of  such  grants, 
and  whether  they  are  void  or  voidable,  or  whether  Venezuela 
shall  be  required  to  confirm  them,  or  whether  they  shall  be 
deemed  to  have  been  so  confirmed  by  virtue  of  a  provision  in  the 
arbitral  decision  itself,  are  questions  for  the  Tribunal  to  determine. 


go  TREATY   OF   ARBITRATION. 

The  evidence  annexed  to  the  British  Case  and  Counter-Case, 
covering  the  history  of  British  administration,  while  it  fails  to 
state  with  particularity  the  number,  location  or  character  of  tem- 
porary or  other  grants  in  the  disputed  territory  at  the  date  of  the 
Treaty,  gives  certain  general  indications  in  reference  to  the  history 
of  settlement  since  the  acquisition  of  the  colony  by  Great  Britain. 

Down  to  1850  there  was  no  occupation  of  the  disputed  territory 
by  British  settlers,  either  with  or  without  a  grant,  on  the  coast, 
west  of  the  Monica  or  in  the  interior  above  the  first  falls  of  the 
Cuyuni. 

In  1850  an  agreement  was  entered  into  by  the  two  parties  that 
neither  should  occupy  or  encroach  upon  the  territory  in  dispute; 
and  no  territorial  benefits  can  certainly  be  derived  by  Great 
Britain  from  any  occupation  which  took  place  while  that  agree- 
ment was  in  force.  Neither  can  reason,  justice,  the  principles  of 
international  law,  or  the  equities  of  the  case,  require  that  Vene- 
zuela should  assume  any  obligations  in  reference  to  the  com- 
pensation either  of  the  British  Government  or  of  British  subjects 
for  the  revocation  or  invalidation  of  grants  made  by  the  British 
Government  during  that  period. 

The  construction  correctly  put  upon  this  agreement  by  Great 
Britain  is  shown  by  the  text  of  the  proclamation  issued  January 
30,  1867,  by  the  Colonial  authorities  of  British  Guiana,  as 
follows: 

"  Whereas  in  the  year  1850  a  mutual  engagement  was  entered  into  by 
the  (government  of  Great  Britain  and  that  of  Venezuela,  to  the  effect  that 
neither  Government  would  occupy  or  encroach  upon  certain  tracts  of 
country  theretofore  in  dispute,  lying  between  the  boundary  of  British 
Guiana,  as  claimed  by  Great  Britain,  and  the  boundary  of  Venezuelan 
Guiana,  as  claimed  by  Venezuela  ; 

"  And  whereas  a  company  has  been  lately  formed  assuming  the  name  of 
British  Guiana  Gold  Company,  for  the  purpose  of  seeking  for  gold  and 
working  any  deposits  thereof  to  be  found  within  the  tracts  aforesaid,  and 
it  is  understood  that  British  subjects  are  employed  by  the  said  company 
within  the  said  tracts :  Now,  this  is  to  inform  those  British  subjects  and  all 


or  y 


TREA;Yc9F|^^^i^^I0N.  61 

others  conceroed,  and  they  are  hereby  required  to  take  notice,  that  Her 
Majesty's  Government  can  not  undertake  to  afford  protection  to  British  sub- 
jects so  employed  in  these  tracts  as  aforesaid,  and  that  all  such  British  sub- 
jects can  only  be  recognized  as  a  community  of  British  adventurers,  acting 
on  their  own  responsibility  and  at  their  own  peril  and  cost."  (V.  C, 
vol.  iii,  pp.  148-149.) 

The  Agreement  of  1850  has  never  been  abrogated  or  repudiated 
and  was  appealed  to  by  Great  Britain  as  late  as  January,  1887,  in 
the  letter  of  the  Earl  of  Iddesleigh  of  that  date  to  Mr.  St.  John, 
the  British  Minister  at  Caracas.  By  this  express  admission  it  was 
in  force  at  that  date,  and  no  action  taken  since  that  date  has  dis- 
turbed it. 

Apart,  however,  from  the  question  whether  the  Agreement 
of  1850  was  in  force  subsequent  to  1887,  and  even  assuming 
that  it  was  not,  the  British  Government  has,  by  its  own  ac- 
tion, put  the  holders  of  grants  upon  notice  that  such  grants 
were  taken   under  an  uncertain  tenure. 

In  June,  1887,   the   Governor  of  British  Guiana,  by  express 

instruction  from  the  Home  Government,   addressed  the  Court 

of  Policy  in  the  following  terms: 

**  Before  we  proceed  to  the  order  of  the  day,  I  am  anxious  to  make  state- 
ment with  reference  to  the  question  of  the  boundary  between  this  colony 
and  the  Republic  of  Venezuela.  Among  the  applications  which  have  been 
received  for  mining  licenses  and  concessions,  under  the  mining  regulations 
passed  under  ordinance  16  of  1880,  16  of  1886,  and  4  of  1887,  there  are 
many  which  apply  to  lands  which  are  within  the  territory  in  dispute  be- 
tween Her  Majesty's  Government  and  the  Venezuelan  Republic.  I  have 
received  instructions  of  the  secretary  of  state  to  caution  expressly  all  per- 
sons interested  in  such  licenses  or  concessions,  or  otherwise  acquiring  an 
interest  in  the  disputed  territory,  that  all  licenses,  concessions,  or  grants 
applying  to  any  portion  of  such  disputed  territory  will  be  issued  and  must 
be  accepted  subject  to  the  possibility  that,  in  the  event  of  a  settlement  of 
the  present  disputed  boundary  line,  the  land  to  which  such  licenses,  con- 
cessions, or  grants  apply  may  become  a  part  of  the  Venezuelan  territory; 
in  which  case  no  claim  to  compensation  from  the  colony  or  from  Her 
Majesty's  Government  can  be  recognized ;  but  Her  Majesty's  Government 


62  TREATY   OP  ARBITRATION. 

would,  of  course,  do  whatever  may  be  right  and  practicable  to  secure  from 
the  Government  of  Venezuela  a  recognition  and  confirmation  of  licenses, 
etc.,  now  issued."    (V.  C,  vol.  iii,  pp.  307-308.). 

This  wise  precaution  was  doubtless  taken  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  the  Agreement  of  1850  was  still  in  force;  but  whether  it  was  so 
or  not,  the  effect  of  the  caution  was  to  put  all  grantees  upon  notice 
that  their  grants  might  be  defeated  by  the  determination  of  the 
boundary  question,  and  no  person  holding  under  such  a  grant  can 
claim  any  indemnity  if  that  which  he  was  notified  might  happen 
did  happen,  namely,  the  determination  of  the  territorial  sover- 
eignty of  the  territory  where  the  grant  lay  against  Great  Britain. 
It  will  be  noticed  that  there  is  here  no  suggestion  that  the 
boundary  line  was  to  be  deflected  to,  or  include,  such  settlements. 

Even  if  such  a  reservation  had  not  been  made  by  Great  Britain, 
however,  the  failure  to  make  it,  in  view  of  the  circumstances  of 
the  case,  would  not  be  a  matter  for  which  Venezuela  was 
responsible.  In  fact,  a  short  time  later,  that  is  to  say,  on  Sep- 
tember 5,  1887,  the  caution  previously  given  was  withdrawn  by 
Great  Britain,  and  on  that  date,  the  Secretary  of  State  for  the 
Colonies  wrote  to  the  Governor  of  British  Guiana: 

"  Her  Majesty's  Government  have  decided  that  mining  concessions  and 
grants  of  land  may  be  made  by  the  Government  of  British  Guiana  within 
the  line  referred  to  in  the  Gazette  notice  of  21st  October  last  as  the  bound- 
ary of  the  territory  claimed  by  Great  Britain  "  [the  Schomburgk  line], 
"without  any  reservation,  and  on  the  understanding  that,  should  negocia- 
tions  with  Venezuela  be  renewed,  no  territory  within  that  line  (subject  to 
somepossible  modification  for  the  purpose  of  giving  to  Venezuela  the  com- 
mand of  the  mouths  of  tiie  Orinoco)  will  be  conceded  to  that  Republic." 
(B.  C.-C,  App.,  p.  312.) 

It  thus  appears  that  Great  Britain  first  put  all  her  subjects 
upon  notice  and  then  distinctly  withdrew  and  contradicted  the 
notice,  and  gave  them  an  afifirmative  assurance  that  their  titles 
would  be  defended,  even  if  it  should  be  found  that  they  were  in 
territory  that  might  be  rightfully  claimed  by  Venezuela.     As  to 


TREATY   OF   ARBITRATION.  68 

the  responsibilities  towards  its  own  grantees  in  which  this  extra- 
ordinary action  of  the  Government  involved  it,  we  have  nothing 
to  say  except  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  responsibilities 
thus  assumed  were  far  more  onerous  and  emphatic  than  would 
have  been  the  case  had  the  Governor  of  British  Guiana  not  made 
his  reservation  of  the  previous  June,  only  to  be  followed  by  a 
positive  contradiction  in  September. 

Wherein  lies  the  responsibility  of  Venezuela  with  reference  to 
these  grantees,  under  the  circumstances  here  related?  As  Secre- 
tary Olney  says,  in  his  letter  to  Sir  Julian  Pauncefote,  of  June  12, 
1896: 

"  Suppose  it  to  be  true  that  there  are  British  subjects  who — to  quote  the 
despatch — '  have  settled  in  territory  which  they  had  every  ground  for  be- 
lieving to  be  British,'  the  grounds  for  such  belief  were  not  derived  from 
Venezuela.  They  emanated  solely  from  the  British  Government;  and  if 
British  subjects  have  been  deceived  by  the  assurances  of  their  Government, 
it  is  a  matter  wholly  between  them  and  their  own  Government  and  in  no 
way  concerns  Venezuela.  ...  In  but  one  possible  contingency  could 
any  claim  of  that  sort  by  Great  Britain  have  even  a  semblance  of  plausi- 
bility. If  Great  Britain's  assertion  of  jurisdiction,  on  the  faith  of  which 
her  subjects  made  settlements  in  territory  subsequently  ascertained  to  be 
Venezuelan,  could  be  shown  to  have  been  in  any  way  assented  to  or 
acquiesced  in  by  Venezuela,  the  latter  Power  might  be  held  to  be  concluded 
and  to  be  estopped  from  setting  up  any  title  to  such  settlements.  But  the 
notorious  facts  of  the  case  are  all  the  other  way.  Venezuela's  claims  and 
her  protests  against  alleged  British  usurpation  have  been  constant  and  em- 
phatic, and  have  been  enforced  by  all  the  means  practicable  for  a  weak 
power  to  employ  in  its  dealings  with  a  strong  one,  even  to  the  rupture  of 
diplomatic  relations."    (V.  C,  vol.  iii,  p.  308.) 

Under  these  circumstances,  it  is  asserted  by  Venezuela  that 
the  adjustment  of  the  equities  of  such  settlers,  provided  for  by 
Rule  (c),  whatever  it  requires,  does  not  require  any  compensation 
to  British  settlers  in  territory  which  proves  in  the  arbitration  to 
have  been  Venezuelan.  The  grants  to  these  settlers  are  of  the 
most  recent  origin.      As  there  was  no  British  settlement  in  the 


04  TREATY  OF  ARBITRATION. 

disputed  territory  in  1850,  west  of  the  Moruca,  neither  was  there 
any  settlement  in  that  territory  until  aft er  1880.  All  grants  which 
have  been  issued  have  been  issued  subsequent  to  that  date.  As 
appears  from  the  statement  of  Mr.  im  Thurn,  grants  were  not  made 
in  the  coast  territory  until  1890,  and  then  they  were  given  gratuit- 
ously to  settlers  who  had  up  to  that  time  been  mere  squatters, 
and  many  of  whom  had  no  connection  with  the  British  Govern- 
ment except  the  fact  that  they  had  settled  upon  land  which  that 
Government  claimed.     (B.  C,  VII,  p.  273.) 

Taking  all  these  facts  into  consideration,— the  recent  character 
of  the  settlement,  the  Agreement  of  1850  not  to  occupy  this  ter- 
ritory, still  appealed  to  by  Great  Britain  in  1887,  the  action  of  the 
British  Governor  in  issuing  conditional  grants  in  June  of  that 
year,  the  action  of  the  Colonial  Secretary  in  removing  the  condi- 
tions annexed  to  those  grants,  in  the  following  September,— can 
it  be  said  that  the  adjustment  of  the  equities  of  such  settlers  in 
territory  which  proves  to  be  Venezuelan  is  a  matter  that  devolves 
upon  Venezuela?  Is  there  any  obligation  upon  Venezuela  to 
respect  such  grants?  Whatever  may  be  the  obligations  of  the 
British  Government  towards  the  grantees,  is  there  any  such  obli- 
gation on  the  part  of  Venezuela?  Will  this  Tribunal,  in  the  face 
of  the  history  of  this  dispute  and  of  the  action  of  Great  Britain 
during  the  present  century  impose  any  liability  upon  the  Vene- 
zuelan Government  in  behalf  of  these  settlers?  Will  it  not 
rather  say  that  the  grants  were  void  ah  initio,  and  that  if  the 
grantees  are  to  remain  in  possession,  they  can  only  do  so  upon 
such  terms  as  Venezuela  may  prescribe? 

Only  one  more  fact  remains  to  be  taken  into  consideration. 
A  large  part  of  the  concessions  given  by  the  British  Government 
since  1887  in  the  disputed  territory  relate  to  mining  privileges.  By 
reason  of  these  privileges  an  immense  quantity  of  gold,  amount- 
ing in  value  to  about  twenty  million  dollars,  has  been  taken 
from  the  territory.     As  far  as  placer  raining  is  concerned,  it  has 


TREATY   OF   ARBITRATION.  65 

been  stripped  of  an  enormous  source  of  natuial  wealth.  The 
revenue  derived  by  the  British  Government  from  royalties  on 
these  concessions  has  amounted  to  over  a  million  dollars,  a 
revenue  which  has,  if  this  territory  is  decreed  to  be  Venezuelan, 
been  abstracted  from  it  by  the  British  Government  at  substan- 
tially no  cost  to  itself.  In  view  of  this  fact,  certainly  Great 
Britain  should  take  care  of  her  own  grantees.  She  had  the  use 
of  the  territory  without  right  for  ten  years,  and  in  the  exercise 
of  that  use  she  stripped  it  of  its  resources,  at  enormous  pecuniary 
advantage  to  herself.  Can  she  now,  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  she 
took  the  lisk  of  giving  to  her  subjects  the  privilege  of  operating 
this  business,  to  strip  this  territory  to  her  own  great  pecuniary  ad- 
vantage, and  in  utter  disregard  of  the  possible  rights  of  Vene- 
zuela, claim  that  Venezuela  is  under  any  responsibility  to  make 
good  to  these  grantees  any  damages  which  they  may  suffer  by 
reason  of  the  establishment  of  Venezuelan  title  to  the  territory? 
To  give  such  effect  to  British  occupation  would  outrage  reason, 
justice,  the  principles  of  international  law,  and  the  equities  of 
the  case. 


CHAPTER  in. 

DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

Having  thus  considered  the  meaning  and  scope  of  the  treaty 
of  arbitration,  it  is  now  proposed  to  take  up  the  diplomatic  cor- 
respondence between  Spain  and  the  Netherlands,  and  l)etvveen 
Venezuela  and  Great  Britain,  with  a  view  to  ascertaining  what 
territorial  claims  have  been  advanced,  and  upon  what  grounds 
those  claims  have  been  rested. 

In  a  note  addressed  to  Sir  Julian  Pauncefote  November  20, 
1895,  Lord  Salisbury  stated  that  "the  dispute  on  the  subject  of 
the  frontier  did  not,  in  fact,  commence  till  after  the  year  1840  " 
(V.  C.-C,  vol.  iii,  p.  275.)  This  is  true,  so  far  as  Great  Britain 
and  Venezuela  are  concerned;  but  to  begin  the  study  of  the 
diplon)atic  correspondence  at  that  point,  ignoring  what  passed 
on  the  same  subject  between  Spain  and  the  Netherlands  during 
the  eighteenth  century,  would  be  to  pass  by  a  vital  part  of  the  con- 
troversy. 

The  significance  of  Great  Britain's  claims  subsequent  to  1840 
can  be  appreciated  only  when  it  is  considered  that  she  succeeded 
to  the  rights  of  the  Dutch.  It  is  to  the  year  1747,  tlierefore,  that 
we  first  invite  attention. 

In  the  year  1747  there  was  a  profound  ignorance  on  the  part  of 
the  Dutch  as  to  the  proper  location  of  the  boundary  between  the 
colony  of  Essequibo  and  the  Spanish  dominions.  In  September  of 
that  year  "the  Ten  "  adopted  a  resolution  instructing  that  "all 
the  respective  Chambers,  each  by  itself,  investigate  and  inquire 
whether  it  can  be  discovered  how  far  the  limits  of  this  Company 
in  Rio  Essequibo  do  extend  "  (V.  C,  vol.  ii,  p.  00). 

In  December,  1748,  the  Governor  wrote  to  the  Company,  and, 


68  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE. 

after  referiing  to  the  talk  of  some  old  people  and  Indians, 
added:  "  but  this  talk  gives  not  the  slightest  certainty  "  He  also 
expressed  a  wish  "  that,  if  it  were  possible,"  he  "  might  know  the 
true  boundary"  (V.  C,  vol.  ii,  p.  101). 

The  visit  of  the  Governor  to  Holland  in  1750  led  to  many  con- 
sultations on  this  point  between  himself,  the  Company  and  the 
Stadtholder— all  without  result— and  he  returned  to  Esseqiiibo 
with  the  boundary  still  a  matter  of  conjecture. 

In  1754  he  again  appealed  to  the  Company  for  "  the  so  long 
sought  definition  of  frontier  "  (V.  C,  vol.  ii,  p.  113),  and  asked:  "Is 
not  this  regulated  by  the  Treaty  of  Mlinster?"  To  this  the  Com- 
pany answered:  "  We  would  we  were  able  to  give  you  an  exact 
and  precise  definition  of  the  proper  limits  of  the  river  of  Esse 
quibo  such  as  you  have  several  times  asked  of  us;  but  we  greatly 
doubt  w^hether  any  precise  and  accurate  definition  can  anywhere 
be  found,  save  and  except  the  general  limits  of  the  Company's 
territories  stated  in  the  preambles  of  the  respective  charters 
granted  to  the  West  India  Company  at  various  times  by  the  States 
General"  (V.  C,  vol.  ii,  p.  117). 

The  Spanish  attack  on  the  Cuyuni  post  in  1758  brought  matters 
to  a  crisis.  It  obliged  Governor  Storm  van  's  Gravesande  to  take  a 
definite  stand  in  the  matter;  and  hence,  by  his  orders,  the  Military 
Commandant  in  Essequibo  wrote,  on  December  8,  1758,  to  the 
Spanish  Commandant  in  Orinoco: 

*'  That  in  the  name  of  the  States  General  his  Sovereigns  ho  persists,  and 
now  for  the  second  time  demands  the  freeing  of  the  prisoners  and  a  suit- 
able satisfaction  for  this  violation  and  insult  done  to  the  territory  of  his 
Sovereigns,  and  that,  since  it  seems  to  him,  according  to  the  letter  in  ques- 
tion, that  you  in  Guayana  and  at  Cumana  are  ignorant  of  the  boundaries 
of  the  territory  of  His  Catholic  Majesty  and  those  of  the  States  General  ac- 
cording to  the  treaties  at  present  subsisting,  he  has  ordered  me  to  send  you 
the  enclosed  map  on  which  you  will  be  able  to  see  them  very  distinctly. 
..."  (V.  C,  vol.  ii,  p.  128). 

D'Anville's  map,  here  referred  to,  is  reproduced  as  No.  16  in 
the  Atlas  accompanying  the  British  Case;  and  it  is  important  to 
note  that  the  line  there  shown    gave  Barima   Point  and   both 


DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  69 

the  Barima  and  Amacura  rivers,  from  their  sources  to  their 
mouths,  to  Spain.  The  extreme  claim  of  the  Dutch  in  1758,  as 
regards  the  coast,  is  thus  seen  to  have  extended  no  further  than 
just  beyond  the  Waini  River. 

This  statement  of  the  Dutch  claim  in  1758  was  communicated 
by  the  Dutch  Governor  to  the  Dutch  West  India  Company;  and 
the  Company,  so  far  from  enlarging  on  it  in  the  Remonstrance 
presented  in  1759  to  the  Court  of  Spain,  limited  itself  to  affirming 
its  immemorial  possession,  not  of  the  Barima,  nor  of  the  Amacura, 
nor  even  of  the  Waini,  but  merely  of  the  Essequibo  River  and  all 
its  branches.  It  asked  "  that  reparation  may  be  made  for  the  said 
hostilities,  and  that  the  Remonstrants  may  be  reinstated  in  the 
quiet  possession  of  the  said  post  on  the  river  of  Cuyuni,  and  also 
that  through  their  High  Mightinesses  and  the  Court  of  Madrid  a 
proper  dehmitation  between  the  Colony  of  Essequibo  and  the 
river  Orinoco  may  be  laid  down  by  autliority,  so  as  to  prevent  any 
future  dispute  "  (V.  C,  vol.  ii,  p.  134). 

Spain  made  no  formal  answer  to  this  Remonstrance,  and  it  is 
liardly  necessary  to  add  that  the  Dutch  received  no  satisfaction. 
The  practical  result  of  the  appeal  was  that  Spain  continued  to 
occupy  the  Cuyuni  and  to  exclude  the  Dutch  from  the  post  in  the 
quiet  possession  of  which  these  latter  asked  to  be  reinstated. 

The  Dutch  Remonstrance  of  1759  was  followed  by  another  in 
1769.  Between  these  dates  the  Dutch  continued  to  exhibit  vac- 
illation and  uncertainty  regarding  the  location  of  their  boundary, 
and  to  search  for  information  as  to  where  the  line  should  run. 
The  Spaniards,  on  the  other  hand,  continued  to  exclude  the  Dutch 
from  both  the  interior  and  the  coast,  and  to  assert  sovereignty  over 
the  whole  disputed  region.  A  glance  at  some  of  the  correspond- 
ence between  the  Dutch  Governor  and  the  Colony  during  this 
period  cannot  fail  to  be  instructive.  That  correspondence  shows, 
on  the  one  hand,  the  ignorance  of  the  Dutch  authorities  as  to  the 
extent  of  their  territory,  and  their  admission  as  to  the  extent  of 


70  DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE. 

Spanish  teiritoiy,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  trifling  and  insig- 
nificant grounds  upon  which  they  based  their  extreme  pretensions. 

First,  as  to  the  ignorance  of  the  Dutch: 

Referring  to  the  destroyed  Cuyuni  post  of  1758,  the  Company 
thus  wrote  to  the  Governor  on  May  ?»lst,  1750: 

"  Meanwhile  we  should  like  on  this  occasion  to  be  exactly  informed 
where  the  aforesaid  Post  on  the  River  of  Cuyuni  was  situated;  for  in  the  latest 
map  made  by  you  of  the  Colony  we  have  found  indeed,  that  river,  but  have 
not  yet  succeeded  in  finding  the  Post  itself.  Furthermore,  what  grounds 
you  might  be  able  to  give  us  to  further  support  our  right  to  the  possession 
of  the  aforesaid  Post— perhaps  a  declaration  by  the  oldest  inhabitants  of  the 
Colony  could  in  this  connection  be  handed  in,  which  might  be  of  service. 
We  should  also  like  to  have  a  more  specific  description  of  the  Map  of  Amer- 
ica by  M.  D'Anville,  to  which  you  appeal ;  for  that  gentleman  has  issued 
many  maps  dealing  with  that  continent,  and  in  none  of  these  which  have 
come  to  our  notice  have  we  been  able  to  discover  any  traces  [of  what  you 
mention,"]  (B.  C,  II,  p.  174). 

Again,  on  December  3rd,  1759,  they  wrote: 

"  Wherefore  we  still  request  you  to  lay  before  us  everything  which  might 
in  any  way  be  of  service  in  proof  of  our  right  of  ownership  to,  or  possession 
of,  the  aforesaid  river,  because  after  receiving  it  we  might  perhaps  present 
to  the  States-General  a  fuller  Remonstrance  on  this  head,  with  a  statement 
of  facts  joined  thereto.  For  this  purpose  there  might  especially  be  of  use  to 
us  a  small  map  of  the  River  of  Cuyuni,  with  indication  of  the  places  where 
the  Company's  Post,  and  also  the  grounds  of  'Oud  Duinenburg'  and  of  the 
Company's  coffee  and  indigo  plantations  were  situated,  and,  finally,  of  the 
so-called  Blue  Mountain  in  which  the  miners  carried  on  their  work  for  our 
account,"  (B.  C,  II,  p.  l&l). 

And  in  the  same  letter  they  add: 

"  We  see  from  your  letter  that  you  extend  the  boundary  of  the  Colony  in 
the  direction  of  the  Orinoco  not  only  as  far  as  Waini,  but  even  as  far  as 
Barima.  We  should  like  to  be  informed  of  the  grounds  upon  which  you 
base  this  contention,  and  especially  your  inference  that,  Cuyuni  being 
situate  on  this  side  of  Waini,  it  must  therefore  necessarily  belong  to  the 
Colony;  for,  so  far  as  we  know,  there  exist  no  Conventions  that  the  boundary 
lines  in  South  America  run  in  a  straigiit  line  from  the  sea-coast  inland,  as 
do  most  of  the  frontier  lines  of  the  English  Colonies  in  North  America  " 
(B.C.  II,  p.  182). 


DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE.  Yl 

Seven  years  later  the  Company  still  continued  in  ignorance  as 
to  the  proper  boundary  of  their  Colony.  On  September  25,  1Y66, 
they  thus  wrote  to  the  Governor: 

'•  In  one  of  yonr  preceding  letters  you  told  us  that  the  place  about  the 
Barima,  where  some  scum  and  offscourings  of  folk  were  staying  together 
and  leading  a  scandalous  life,  was  Spanish  territory,  and  that  you  intended 
to  have  Mr.  Rousselet,  who  was  going  on  a  mission  to  Orinoco  submit 
some  propositions  to  the  Spanish  Governor  for  the  extirpation  of  that  gang. 
And  now  you  inform  us  of  your  having  sent  thither  the  Postholder  of 
Moruka  with  positive  orders,  probably  projjria  authoritate  without  any 
concurrence  of  the  aforesaid  Governor,  inasmuch  as  Mr.  Rousselet  had  not 
yet  departed  thither  on  his  mission,  and  we  cannot  quite  make  this  tally 
with  the  other.  If  that  place  is  really  Spanish  territory,  then  you  have 
acted  very  imprndently  and  irregularly;  and,  on  the  contrary,  if  that  place 
forms  part  of  the  Colony,  and  you  had  previously  been  in  error  as  to  the 
territory,  then  you  have  done  very  well,  and  we  must  fully  approve  of  your 
course,  as  also  of  the  Court's  Resolution  that  henceforth  no  one  shall  be  at 
liberty  to  stay  on  the  Barima.  But  if  the  Court  has  no  jurisdiction  in  that 
place,  we  see  little  result  from  that  Resolution  :  extra  territorium  suum  jus 
dicenti  enim  imimne  non  paretur"  (B.  C,  III,  p.  137). 

The  above  extracts  are  all  taken  from  letters  of  the  Company; 
and  it  will  be  observed  that  the  ignorance  which  these  exhibit  is 
complete,  so  much  so,  indeed,  that  not  even  a  suggestion  canie 
from  the  Company  to  enlighten  the  Governor  or  to  help  him  to  an 
understanding  of  what  he  should  regard  as  being  within  his  juris- 
diction. 

The  letters  of  the  Governor  during  this  period  prove  the 
same  ignorance  on  his  part;  they  also  serve  to  make  clear  the  ex- 
treme Dutch  claims  of  the  eighteenth  century;  they  disclose  the 
origin  of  those  claims,  and  they  reveal  the  foundations  upon  which 
both  those  claims  and  the  subsequent  British  pretensions  have 
been  built. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  in  writing  to  the  Spanish  Com- 
mandant on  the  Orinoco  complaining  of  the  attacks  upon  the 
Cuyuni  Post  of  1758,  Storm  van  's  Gravesande  had  transmitted 
a  copy  of  D'Anvilie's   map.     That   his  own   views  were  based 


72  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

upon  D'Anville's  authority  is  shown  by  the  following  ex- 
tract from  his  letter  to  the  Company,  dated  September  9, 
1758: 

"  It  is  my  opinion  that  this  river  is  of  the  greatest  importance  to  your 
Lordships,  much  more  so  tlian  any  one  of  the  others,  and  also  that  it  is 
perfectly  certain  and  indisputable  that  they  have  not  the  slightest  claim  to 
it.  If  your  Lordships  will  be  pleased  to  look  at  the  map  of  this  country, 
drawn  by  Mr.  D'Anville  with  the  utmost  care,  your  Lordships  will  clearly 
see  that  this  is  so  "  (B.  C,  II,  p.  144). 

It  was  during  1759  that  van  's  Gravesande  seems  to  have  first 
had  any  independent  views  of  his  own  as  to  the  boundary,  for 
on  September  1st,  of  that  year,  he  thus  wrote  to  the  Company: 

*'  The  time  is  too  sliort  to  enable  me  to  send  what  your  Lordships  re- 
quire concerning  Ciiyuni,  and  in  this  despatch  I  shall  have  to  content  my- 
self with  informing  your  Lordships  that  Cuyuni  being  one  of  the  three 
arms  which  constitute  this  river,  and  your  Lordships  having  had  for  very 
many  years  the  coffee  and  indigo  plantation  there,  also  that  the  mining 
master,  with  his  men,  having  worked  on  the  Blue  Mountain  in  that  river 
without  the  least  opposition,  the  possession  of  that  river,  as  far,  too,  as 
this  side  of  the  Wayne,  which  is  pretended  to  be  the  boundary-line  (al- 
though I  think  the  latter  ought  to  be  extended  as  far  as  Barima),  cannot 
be  questioned  in  the  least  possible  way,  and  your  Lordships'  right  of  owner- 
ship is  indisputable,  and  beyond  all  doubt"  (B.  C,  II,  p.  180). 

It  is  important  to  note  with  regard  to  this  letter,  first  that 
van  's  Gravesande  gives  the  Waini  as  the  ''  pretended  boundary  " — 
pretended,  of  course,  by  the  Dutch,  not  by  the  Spanish;  second, 
that  his  own  views,  which  were  at  that  time  the  extreme  views, 
were,  for  reasons  not  stated,  that  the  line  should  go  as  far  as 
Barima— that  is  to  say,  up  to  the  Barima;  third,  that  whatever 
rights  the  Company  then  had  to  the  River  Cuyuni  were  based 
upon  certain  facts,  or  supposed  facts,  which  van  's  Gravesande 
enumerates,  namely,  that  the  Cuyuni  was  an  affluent  of  the  Esse- 
quibo,  that  the  Company  had  had  '*  the  coffee  and  indigo  planta- 
tion there,"  and  that  "  the  mining  master  "  had  at  one  time  done 
some  prospecting  "  on  the  Blue  Mountain." 


DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE.  Y3 

What  weight  ought  to  attach  to  the  fact  that  the  Ouyuni  is  an 
afifluent  of  the  Essequibo  is  a  matter  which  will  be  considered  in 
another  part  of  this  argument,  and  with  regard  to  which  the 
opinion  of  van  's  Gravesande  can  hardly  be  controUing;  the  coffee 
and  indigo  plantation  to  which  he  refers  was  located  below  the 
lowest  fall,  and  can  hardly,  therefore,  be  regarded  as  constitut- 
ing an  occupation  of  the  river  above  those  falls;  similarly  the 
work  of  the  "  mining  master,"  by  whom  of  course  is  meant  Hilde- 
brandt,  was  confined  to  the  lowest  reaches  of  the  river,  and  even 
so  was  abandoned,  as  a  failure,  almost  as  soon  as  begun. 

These  were  all  the  grounds  adduced  by  van  's  Gravesande  in 
support  of  his  claim,  but  that  he  rested  little  on  them,  and  that 
what  really  influenced  him  was  D'Anville's  authority,  is  shown  by 
the  limit  which  he  admits  with  regard  to  the  Cuyuni,  since  his 
claim  there  was  only  to  such  part  of  it  as  lay  "this  side  of  the 
Wayne,"  that  is  to  say,  this  side  of  that  imaginary  line  appearing 
in  D'Anville's  map. 

All  this  is  confirmed  by  a  later  letter  of  van  's  Gravesande, 
written  on  May  2nd,  1760,  in  which  he  says: 

"I  trust  and  doubt  not  that  their  High  Mightinesses  will  obtain  proper 
satisfaction  for  an  act  that  is  so  entirely  contrary  to  the  law  of  nations, 
and  I  can  very  well  understand  that  the  death  of  the  King  of  Spain  must 
delay  the  settlement  of  the  matter. 

"I  have  very  little  to  add  to  what  I  have  already  had  the  honour  of 
submitting  to  your  Lordships  in  several  of  my  despatches,  and  although 
I  am  aware,  as  your  Lordships  are  pleased  to  inform  me,  that  no  Treaties 
have  been  made  which  decided  that  the  dividing  boundary  in  South 
America  should  run  inland  in  a  direct  line  from  the  sea-coast,  as  is  the 
case  with  the  English  in  North  America,  it  still  appears  to  me  {salvo 
meliori)  to  be  an  irrefutable  fact  that  the  rivers  themselves,  which  have 
been  in  the  possession  of  your  Lordships  for  such  a  large  number  of  years, 
and  have  been  inhabited  by  subjects  of  the  State  without  any  or  the  least 
opposition  on  the  part  of  the  Spanish,  are  most  certainly  the  property  of 
your  Lordships.  I  am  strengthened  in  my  view  of  this  matter  by  the  fact 
that  Cuyuni  is  not  a  separate  river  like  Weyne  and  Pomeroou  (which  last 
has  been  occupied  by  us,  and  still   contains  the  foundations  of  your  Lord- 


74  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

ships'  fortresses),  but  an  actual  part  of  the  River  Essequibo  itself,  which  is 
divided  into  three  arms  about  8  to  10  miles  above  Fort  Zeelandia,  and  about 
one  long  cannon  shot  below  Fort  Kijkoveral,  and  to  each  of  which  the 
Indians  give  a  separate  name— the  first  Cuyuni,  the  second  Massaruni  (in 
which  is  Kijkoveral),  and  the  third  Essequibo— the  principal  stream  below 
this  division  being  called  nat  Essequibo,  but  Araunama  by  the  Arawaks, 
the  real  aborigines  of  this  country. 

"Although  I  do  not  doubt  that  your  Lordships  will  now  have  re- 
ceived the  map  compiled  by  Mr.  D'Anville,  I  have,  in  order  to  make  the 
matter  clear  to  your  Lordships,  copied  that  part  of  the  map  wiiich  relates 
to  our  possessions,  and  filled  in  with  as  much  precision  as  possible  the 
sites  of  your  Lordships'  plantation  of  Duynenburg,  situated  partly  in  Mas- 
saruni and  partly  in  Cuyuni.  In  Cuyuni  I  have  marked  your  Lordships' 
coffee  i)lantation,  indigo  plantation,  the  dwelling  place  of  the  half-free 
Creoles  (to  which  the  Spaniards  came  very  close),  and  Blauwenberg,  and 
[the]  Post  which  was  sacked,  together  with  the  sites  of  your  Lordships' 
three  other  Posts  in  Maroco,  Maykouny,  and  Arinda,  up  in  Essequibo" 
(B.  C,  TI,  pp.  184-185). 

Here  again  van  's  Gravesande  bases  his  claims,  first,  upon 
D'Anville's  authority;  and  second,  upon  a  supposed  possession 
of  certain  rivers  by  the  Company.  When  detailed  reference  is 
made  to  this  so-called  possession,  it  is  significant  that  the  Barima 
is  not  mentioned;  that,  in  speaking  of  the  Waini  and  the  Pom- 
eroon,  van  's  Gravesande  distinctly  limits  the  Company's  posses- 
sion to  the  Pomeroon — "which  last,"  he  says,  "has  been  occu- 
pied by  us  " — and  that  the  possession  of  the  Cuyuni  and  Maza- 
runi  is  made  to  rest,  (a)  upon  the  existence  of  the  plantation 
Duynenburg,  situated  at  the  point  of  junction  of  the  Mazaruni 
and  Cuyuni,  {b)  upon  the  coffee  and  indigo  plantation,  (c)  upon 
the  dwelling-place  of  the  half-free  Creoles,  (d)  upon  the  mining 
at  Blauwenberg,  and  (e)  upon  the  Post  which  had  been  sacked. 

The  location  of  all  of  these  places,  except  Blauwenberg  and 
the  sacked  Post  was  beloiv  the  lowest  fall;  while  these  two 
were  but  a  short  distance  above  them.  The  prospecting  opera- 
tion of  Hildebrandt  in  the  Blauwenberg,  or  Blue  Mountain,  have 
just  been  referred  to  above.     As  for  the  Post  which  had  l)een 


DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE.  <5 

sacked,  it  is  clear  that  the  establishment  of  a  Post  which  was  im- 
mediately destroyed  by  the  Spaniards  under  a  claim  of  right,  can 
hardly  prove  either  Dutch  occupation  or  Dutch  title. 

jAgain,  on  August  12th,  1701,  van  's  Gravesande  wrote: 

"After  takiug  everything  out  of  the  Company's  canoe  of  Aeclitekerke 
they  let  it  go,  and  it  came  home,  but  they  have  kept  the  fine  new  canoe 
belonging  to  the  plantation  Duynenburg.  Tlie  latter  having  been  cap- 
tured this  side  of  Barima,  I  am  of  opinion  that  it  was  captured  upon  the 
Honourable  Company's  territory,  for,  although  there  ore  no  positive  proofs 
to  be  found  here,  so  has  always  been  so  considered  by  the  oldest  settlers, 
as  also  by  all  the  free  Indians,  Amongst  the  latter  I  liave  spoken  with  some 
very  old  Caribs,  who  told  me  that  they  remember  the  time  when  the  Hon- 
ourable Company  had  a  Post  in  Barima,  for  the  re-establishment  of  which 
they  had  olten  asked,  in  order  that  they  might  be  relieved  from  the  annoy- 
ance of  the  Surinam  pirates;  and  then,  lastly,  hecmise  the  houndaries  are 
always  thus  defined  by  foreigners,  as  may  be  seen  on  tiie  map  prepared  t)i/ 
D'Ajiville,  the  Frenchman,  a  small  extract  of  which  I  have  sent  by  the 
'Demerary  Welvaeren.' 

"  These  are  the  only  reasons,  your  Lordships,  upon  which  I  base  my  opin- 
ions, because  there  are  no  old  jyapers  here  out  of  which  any  information  could 
beohtaitied"  (B.  C,  IT,  p.  2U1). 

It  is  now  known  that  the  tradition  about  a  former  Dutch  post 
in  Barima,  here  referred  to  by  van  's  Gravesande,  was  without 
foundation;  and  in  this  connection  attention  is  called  to  the  fact 
that  the  Dutch  Governor  himself,  the  person  most  interested  in 
proving  the  existence  of  such  a  post,  and  the  one  most  likely  to 
have  had  at  hand  the  proofs,  if  any  had  existed,  distinctly  states  that 
**  there  are  no  positive  proofs  to  be  found  here,'^  and  that  "  there 
are  no  old  papers  here  out  of  tvhich  any  information  could  he 
obtained.''^  Even  had  such  proofs  been  found,  and  the  existence 
of  the  mythical  post  been  established,  van  's  Gravesande  distinctly 
limited  his  claim  to  "  this  side  of  Barima." 

That  the  Barima  was  regarded  by  van  's  Gravesande  as 
Spanish  appears  even  more  clearly  in  the  following  extract  from  a 
letter,  dated  August  18,  1764,  and  in  the  British  Case  attributed 
to  's  Gravesande.     In  this  he  says: 


76  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

"Whilst  on  this  subject  I  take  the  liberty  to  inform  your  Excellency 
that  mentioning  the  River  Barima  in  those  passes  causes  complaints  from 
the  Spaniards,  who,  maintaining  that  the  river  belongs  to  them,  in  which  I 
believe  they  are  right,  some  of  these  passes  have  already  been  sent  to  the 
Court  of  Spain  "    (B.  C,  III,  p.  114). 

It  should  be  stated  in  this  connection  that  D'Anville,  along 
with  other  geographers,  placed  the  Barima  west  of  the  Amacura. 
A  reference  to  the  Barima  River  may,  therefore,  really  be  to  the 
Amacura.  It  is  not,  however,  likely  that  van 's  Gravesande  made 
any  such  distinction  between  the  two  in  the  passages  above 
quoted.  As  has  been  seen,  his  notions  of  boundary  were  derived 
from  D'Anville,  and  all  his  arguments  regarding  Dutch  possession 
and  Dutch  territorial  rights  were  arguments  intended  to  support, 
not  any  theory  of  his  own,  but  simply  UAnville's  line.  Now,  that 
line  gave  both  the  Amacura  and  the  Barima  to  Spain;  and  hence, 
such  must  have  been  van  's  Gravesande's  own  views  of  the  matter. 
In  further  explanation  of  van  's  Gravesande  language,  it  should 
also  be  remembered  that  the  names  Barima  and  Barima  River 
were,  in  those  days,  as  they  have  been  since,  often  used  to  desig- 
nate the  entire  region  which  constitutes  the  southeastern  bank  of 
the  Main  or  Ships  Mouth  of  the  Orinoco;  and  that  it  consequently 
included  both  the  Barima  and  Amacura  Rivers.  When  van 
's  Gravesande  speaks  of  D'Anville's  line  and  of  the  Dutch  boundary 
going  "as  far  as  Barima,"  he  evidently  means  as  far  as  this  unde- 
fined Barima  region.  Indeed,  he  could  hardly  mean  anything  else, 
because  the  D'Anville  line  does  not  in  fact  go  as  far  as  the  river 
which  D'Anville  called  Barima,  but  only  as  far  as  the  river  which 
he  called  Amacura. 

Of  equal,  if  not  of  greater  importance,  with  van  's  Gravesande 
declarations  was  the  following  formal  statement,  made  on  July 
28,  1767,  by  the  Amsterdam  Chamber  of  the  Dutch  West  India 
Company  to  the  States  General,  in  reply  to  the  Memorial  of  the 
shareholdei-8  of  the  Zeeland  Chamber: 

"  The  second  reason  why  there  is  no  foundation  for  the  claim  of  the  Zee- 
land  Chief  Participants,  that  the  silence  of  the  Representative  and  the  Direct- 


DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE.  Tt 

ors  respecting  the  alleged  addition  of  the  oft-mentioned  words  'and  adjoined 
or  subordinate  rivers  and  places,'  implies  an  acknowledgment  that  under 
this  term  Demerara  must  also  be  included,  and  that  therefore  from  our  side 
consent  has  been  given  to  the  surrender  of  that  Colony,  consists  herein,  that 
the  natural  meaning  of  the  expression  '  Essequibo  and  adjoined  or  subordi- 
nate rivers'  is  not  that  which  the  Zeeland  Chief  Participants  attribute  to  it 
(namely,  that  all  the  places  which  are  situate  on  the  mainland  of  the 
so-called  Wild  Coast,  between  the  boundaries  which  the  Chief  Participants 
themselves  have  arbitrarily  and  without  giving  any  grounds  therefor  defined 
as  extending  from  Moruka  to  Mahaicony,  or  from  Rio  Berbice  as  far  as  the 
Orinoco,  are  'adjoined,  subordinate  to,  and  inseparable  from,' the  Colony 
Essequibo),  but,  on  the  contrary,  only  this,  that  under  that  description  are 
comprehended  the  various  mouths  and  rivers,  originating  from  Rio  Esse- 
quibo or  emptying  into  it,  which  are  marked  on  the  map,  such  as,  for 
instance,  Cuyuni,  Massaruni,  Sepenouwy,  and  Magnouwe "  (B.  C,  III, 
p.  147). 

Certainly  the  Amsterdam  Chamber  in  this  statement  regarded 
the  Moruca  as  the  extreme  western  boundary  on  the  coast. 

The  final  deliverance  of  the  Dutch  authorities  on  the  boundary 
question  is  to  be  found  in  the  Remonstrance  of  1769.  Ten  years  had 
passed  since  the  Court  of  Spain  had  been  appealed  to  for  re- 
dress on  account  of  the  attack  on  the  Dutch  Cuyuni  Post.  No 
answer  had  been  returned  to  that  appeal,  except  that  Spain 
continued  to  exclude  the  Dutch  from  both  the  interior  and  the 
coast.  The  Dutch  attempt,  in  1766,  to  establish  another  Post 
oil  tlio  Cuyuni,  below  the  Post  of  1758,  had  resulted  in  the 
abandonment  of  that  Post  and  in  the  removal  of  the  post- 
holder  to  a  new  location  still  further  down  among  the  lowest 
falls  of  the  Cuyuni.  This  removal  was  due  to  fears  of  Spanish 
attack.  Spain  had  maintained  an  undisputed  control  on  the 
Cuyuni  River;  Dutch  and  Caribs  had  been  driven  out;  the 
Spaniards  had  been  coming  with  impunity  down  to  the  lowest 
falls.  On  the  coast  the  Dutch  had  been  effectively  excluded 
from  the  entire  Barima-Waini  region;  they  had  been  prevented 
from  fishing  in  the  Orinoco  mouth;  their  trade  on  the  Orinoco 
and   Barima  had  been  interdicted;  Dutch  slave  traders  had  been 


78  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

cleared  out  of  Bariraa;  Dutch  vessels  in  that  region  had  l>een 
captured;  the  Spaniards  had  come  even  as  far  as  the  Moruka, 
and  had  attacked  the  Dutch  post  located  there.  It  was 
because  of  all  this  that  another  and  final  Remonstance  was 
addressed  by  the  States  General  to  Spain.  The  following  are 
extracts  from  that  Remonstrance: 

"Kbad  to  tlie  Assembly  the  Hemonstrance  of  the  liepresentative  of 
his  Serene  Highness  the  Prince  of  Orange  and  Nassau,  and  Directors  of 
the  Chartered  West  India  Company  in  the  Presidial  Chamber  of  Zealand, 
on  behalf  of  the  Company  in  general,  as  having  the  particular  direction 
and  care  of  the  colony  of  Esscquibo,  and  of  the  rivers  which  belong  to 
it,  declaring  that  they  the  remonstrants,  had  in  this  capacity  from  time 
almost  immemorial  been  in  possession  not  only  of  the  aforesaid  River 
Essequibo  and  of  several  rivers  and  creeks  which  flow  into  the  sea  along 
the  coast,  but  also  of  all  branches  and  streams  which  fall  into  the  same 
lliver  Essequibo,  and  more  particularly  of  the  most  northerly  arm  of  the 
same  river,  called  the  Cuyuni ;  that  from  time  immemorial  also  on  the 
banks  of  the  same  lliver  Cuyuni,  which  is  considered  as  a  domain  of  the 
State,  there  has  been  established  a  so-called  Post,  consisting  of  a  wooden 
lodge,  wiiicii,  on  behalf  of  the  Company,  like  several  others  in  this  Colony, 
is  occupied  and  guarded  by  a  Postholder  and  outrunner  or  assistant, 
with  some  slaves  and  Indians. 

*'  That,  accordingly,  the  remonstrants,  especially  after  what  had  hap- 
pened in  1750,  had  been  extremely  surprised  to  learn  by  a  letter  from 
Laurens  Storm  van  's  Gravesande,  Director-General  of  the  Colony  of  Esse- 
quibo, written  the  9th  February  last,  that  a  Spanish  detachment  coming 
from  the  Orinoco  had  come  above  that  Post  and  had  carried  off  several 
Indians,  tiireatening  to  return  at  the  first  following  dry  season  and  visit 
Masseroeny,  another  arm  of  the  Essequibo,  lying  between  that  and  the 
Cuyuni  River,  and,  therefore,  also  unquestionably  forming  part  of  the  terri- 
tory of  the  Republic,  in  order  also  to  carry  off  from  thence  a  body  of  Caribs 
(an  Indian  nation  allies  of  the  Dutch  and  under  their  jurisdiction),  and 
then  to  descend  the  River  Masseroeny,  ascend  the  Cuyuni,  and  visit  the 
Company's  said  Post  in  Cnyuni.     (B.  C,  IV,  p,  29.) 

*****  * 

'*  That  they,  the  remonstrants,  had  taken  all  that  as  a  mere  threat, 
which,  as  on  many  other  occasions,  would  have  no  effect,  and  this,  although 
the  Director-General  aforesaid  had  also  informed  them,  by  a  letter  of  the 
2l8t  February,  17G9,  of  which  they  produced  an  extmct  (Addendum  B), 


DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE.  19 

of  the  establishment  of  two  Spanish  Missions,  occupied  by  a  strong  force, 
one  not  far  above  the  Company's  said  Post  in  Ouyuni  (apparently,  however, 
on  Spanish  territory),  and  the  other  a  little  higher  up  on  a  creek  which 
flows  into  the  aforesaid  Cuyuni  River. 

"  That  if,  indeed,  they  could  have  expected  or  have  had  to  look  forward 
to  an  attack  from  the  Spaniards  in  time  of  peace,  it  must,  therefore,  cer- 
tainly have  been  from  that  side,  especially  in  view  of  all  that  the  Director- 
General  had  further  mentioned  in  his  letter  of  the  3rd  March  last,  and  of 
which  an  extract  was  added  as  Addendum  C;  but  that  they,  the  remon- 
strants, had  learned  with  the  greatest  astonishment  from  a  letter  written  by 
the  Director-General,  dated  the  10th  March  last,  to  his  son-in-law,  the 
Commandcur  of  Demerara,  which  the  latter  had  sent  them  in  the  original, 
and  of  which  a  copy  forms  Addendum  D,  that  the  Spaniards  had  begun  to 
carry  off  the  Indians  from  Moruca,  and  had  made  themselves  masters  of 
the  Company's  Post  there,  being  a  small  river  or  creek  south  of  the  Weyne 
River,  situated  between  the  latter  and  the  Pomaroon  River,  where  from 
time  immemorial  the  Comi)any  had  also  a  trading  place  and  a  Post,  and 
which  also  incontestably  belonged  to  the  territory  of  the  Dutch.  (B.  C, 
IV,  p.  30.) 

*****  * 

"  That  they,  the  remonstrants,  considered  it  their  duty  to  further  bring 
to  the  knowledge  of  their  High  Mightinesses  on  this  occasion  that  the  people 
of  the  Orinoco  had  some  time  ago  not  only  begun  to  dispute  with  the  people 
of  the  Essequibo  about  the  fishing  rights  in  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco,  and 
thereupon  to  prevent  them  by  force  from  enjoying  the  same,  notwithstand- 
ing that  the  people  of  Essequibo  had  been  for  many  years  in  peaceful  and 
quiet  possession  of  that  fishery,  which  was  of  great  value  to  them  on  ac- 
count of  the  abundance  of  fish  in  it;  but  that,  further,  the  people  of 
Orinoco  were  beginning  to  prevent,  by  force,  their  fishing  upon  the  terri- 
tory of  the  State  itself,  extending  from  the  River  Marowyne  to  beyond  the 
River  Wayne,  not  far  from  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco,  as  could  be  seen 
by  the  maps  extant  of  those  regions,  particularly  that  of  M.  d'Anville, 
which  on  account  of  its  precision  was  regarded  as  one  of  the  best  *  *  *." 
(B.  C,  IV,  p.  31.) 

These  extracts  should  be  read  in  the  light  of  the  correspond- 
ence between  the  Company  and  van's  Gravesande,  to  which  ref- 
erence has  above  been  made,  The  correspondence  explains  what 
was  meant  by  the  States-General  when  they  allege  "an  almost 
immemorial  possession"  of  the  Essequibo,  "of  the  rivers  and 


80  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

creeks  which  flow  into  the  sea  along  the  coast,"  and  of  the 
Cuyuni.  van  's  Gravesande  had  distinctly  limited  that  "  posses- 
sion "  to  the  Pomeroon  on  the  coast,  and  to  the  indigo  and  coffee 
plantations,  the  mining  operations  of  Hildebrandt,  and  the  de- 
stroyed or  abandoned  Posts  in  the  interior.  It  was  that  posses- 
sion which  the  States-General  had  in  mind  when  they  drew  up 
their  last  Remonstrance.  In  this  Remonstrance  the  States-Gen- 
eral bear  testimony  to  the  effectiveness  of  Spanish  control. 
They  declare  that  Spanish  forces  had  come  down  to  the  very 
junction  of  the  Cuyuni  and  Mazaruni  rivers,  and  had  carried  In- 
dians away  from  there  as  captives. 

In  the  next  paragraph  the  States- General  refer  to  the  estab- 
lishment of  two  Spanish  missions,  "one  not  far  above  the  Com- 
pany's said  Post  in  Cuyuni,"  "and  the  other  a  little  higher  up  on 
a  creek  which  flows  into  the  aforesaid  Cuyuni  River";  and  the  im- 
portant admission  is  added,  with  reference  to  the  nearer  of  these 
Spanish  Posts,  that  it  is  "  apparently,  however,  on  Spanish  terri- 
tory." Thus  did  the  Dutch  recognize  the  fact  that  the  Spaniards 
had  rights  upon  the  Cuyuni  river,  and  that  at  least  a  part  of  that 
river  was  Spanish  territory. 

The  next  paragraph  calls  attention  to  the  coast  region.  The 
Spaniards  are  declared  to  have  made  themselves  masters  of  the 
Moruca  Post;  and,  feeling  that  Dutch  rights  there  were  in  question, 
the  States- General  sought  to  justify  their  title  by  alleging  that  the 
Moruca  was  south  of  the  Waini,  and  near  the  Pomeroon,  of  which 
the  Dutch  had  been  long  in  possession. 

The  next  quoted  paragraph  is  all  important,  for  it  furnishes 
the  final,  authoritative,  and  official  definition  of  the  extreme  pre- 
tensions of  the  Dutch  on  the  coast.  It  begins  by  bearing  testimony 
to  the  fact  that  the  "  people  of  the  Orinoco  "  had  by  force  prevented 
the  Dutch  from  even  fishing  in  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco.  As 
showing  that  territorial  rights  were  not  in  the  thought  of  the  Dutch 
in  connection  with  these  Orinoco  fisheries,  the  States-General 
add,  tha.t  further  than  tJiat,  Spaniards  were  beginning  to  prevent 


DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE.  81 

their  fishing  even  "  upon  the  territory  of  the  State  itself.-''  Then 
follows  a  most  important  clause — a  definition  in  express  terms  of 
that  territory  as  ^'extending  from  the  River  Maroiuyne  to  beyond 
the  River  Wayne,  not  far  from  the  mouth  of  the  Orinico,  as  could 
be  seen  b}^  the  maps  extant  of  those  regions,  particularly  that  of 
M.  d'Anville"  (see  British  Atlas,  maps  16  and  23). 

Here,  then,  we  have  a  statement  of  the  Dutch  extreme  claim 
on  the  coast,  formulated  by  the  Dutch  West  India  Company,  ap- 
proved by  the  States-General,  and  communicated  by  them  in  a 
formal  diplomatic  Remonstrance  to  the  Court  of  Spain.  That 
statement  is  a  distinct  recognition  of  Barima  Point  and  of  the 
Barima  and  Amacura  Rivers  as  Spanish,  and  it  effectually  estops 
the  Dutch,  and  their  successors  the  British,  from  claiming  any 
part  of  that  Point  or  of  either  of  those  rivers. 

This  Remonstrance,  as  we  have  said,  was  the  last  official 
Dutch  utterance  on  the  subject.  Spain  never  answered  it,  but 
continued  to  exclude  the  Dutch  from  the  Barima- Waini  region 
and  from  the  Cuyuni,  The  Dutch  acquiesced;  further  pro- 
tests were  useless;  they  had  no  power  to  expel  the  Spaniards; 
and  so  seventy-one  years  of  diplomatic  silence  ensued.  No 
wonder  that  Lord  Salisbury  was  led  to  beheve  that  "  the  dispute 
on  the  subject  of  the  frontier  did  not,  in  fact,  commence  until 
after  the  year  1840."  Had  he,  and  his  predecessors  in  the 
Foreign  Office,  been  njore  fully  informed  as  to  the  earlier 
diplomatic  history  of  the  question,  it  is  inconceivable  that  they 
would  ever  have  put  forward,  as  a  demand  based  on  Dutch 
rights,  a  claim  either  to  Barima  Point  or  to  the  Barima  or  Amacura 
Rivers,  which  the  Dutch  never  dreamed  of  as  theirs,  and  which 
the  States-General,  in  1769,  distinctly  and  formally  recognized  to 
be  Spanish  territory. 

A  single  incident  breaks  the  silence  between  1769  and  1840. 

On  February  10,  1836,  and  again  on  April  27  of  the  same 
year,  Mr.  Hamilton,  British  Vice-Consul  at  Angostura,  wrote 
to  Sir  Robert  Ker  Porter,  British  Minister  at  Caracas,  calling  at- 


82  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

tention  to  the  dangerous  navigation  of  the  Orinoco  by  the  Boca  de 
Navios  or  ships'  mouth.  A  British  brig  had,  in  the  month  of  Jan- 
uary preceding,  been  lost  there;  and  Mr.  Hamilton,  in  reporting 
the  circumstance,  spoke  of  the  advisability  of  having  a  beacon 
erected  on  the  Point  of  Cape  Barima,  and  urged  the  British  Minis- 
ter to  bring  the  matter  to  the  attention  of  the  Venezuelan  Govern- 
ment. He  added  the  information  that  "there  was  a  pilot-boat 
v^hich  was  to  have  gone  out  every  day  from  Point  Barima  and 
cruise  about,  but  it  was  badly  managed  "  (B.  C,  VH,  p.  84).  Of 
course  he  meant  a  Venezuelan  pilot  boat,  and  it  is  perfectly  clear 
that  in  his  mind  Barima  Point,  from  which  the  pilot  boat  had 
made  or  was  to  have  made  its  daily  start,  and  upon  which  he  sug- 
gested the  erection  of  a  beacon,  was  Venezuelan  territory.  This  is 
most  important  evidence  as  to  the  current  local  belief  of  the  time 
regarding  the  ownership  of  Barima  Point.  Mr.  Haniilton  was  a 
British  official  residing  at  Angostura,  perfectly  informed  as  to  the 
navigation  of  the  Orinoco,  and  naturally  conversant  with  the 
views  current  there.  Had  there  been  a  possibilty  in  his  mind  of 
Barima  being  English  he  would  never  have  written  as  he  did. 

That  Sir  Robert  Ker  Porter  made  a  request  to  the  Venezuelan 
Government  in  conformity  with  Mr.  Hamilton's  suggestion,  and  if 
he  did  not  at  the  time  apprise  his  own  Government  of  that  request, 
his  neglect  simply  shows  that  in  his  mind  Barima  was  so  indisput- 
ably Venezuelan  that  it  never  occurred  to  him  that  his  action  in 
making  the  request  could  ever  come  to  have  a  political  significance. 
Barima  had  never  been  held  by  the  Dutch;  had  never  been  claimed 
by  thom  or  by  Great  Britain;  had,  on  the  contrary,  been  formally 
recognized  by  the  highest  Dutch  authorities  as  Spanish.  Spain 
had  always  held  and  claimed  it,  until  succeeded  in  her  rights  by 
Venezuela;  and  thereafter  Venezuela  had  continued  to  do  the  same. 
No  thought  had  ever  been  entertained  that  it  was  other  than 
Venezuelan  territory.  What  more  natural,  therefore,  than 
that  a  British  Consul  and  a  British  Minister  should  act  upon 
that    belief.       What  better  witnesses,    what  stronger   evidence 


DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE.  83 

can  we  have,  that  the  position  deliberately  taken  by  the 
States- General  in  1769  regarding  Barima  had  undergone  no 
change  during  the  sixty-seven  intervening  years?  It  had 
been  recognized  as  Spanish  in  1769  by  Dutch  officials;  it  was 
recognized  now  as  Venezuelan  by  British  officials,  without  hesita- 
tion and  without  a  thought  that  it  could  be  regarded  as  debatable 
ground.  No  wonder,  then,  that  when,  in  1841,  news  reached 
Angostura  that  the  British  flag  was  flying  at  Barima,  the  intelli- 
gence should  have  created  "the  utmost  surprise  and  alarm" 
there  (B.  C,  VII,  p.  72).  It  proves  how  unprepared  the  public 
mind  was  for  such  an  announcement;  and  it  was  not  strange  that 
Mr.  O'Leary,  then  Biitish  Minister,  in  communicating  the  report 
to  the  Governor  of  British  Guiana,  should  have  refrained  from 
justifying  such  action  (B.  C  ,  VII,  p.  72). 

This  incident  of  flag  flying  was  pregnant  with  trouble.     It  was 
the  unauthorized  act  of   a  young  German  naturalist,  who  for 
some  years  had  been  at  work  in  British  Guiana  under  the  auspices 
of  the  Royal  Geographical  Society,  and  who  had  offered  to,  and 
been  authorized  by,  the  British  Government  to  locate  the  bound- 
ary which  he  alleged   to  have  been  claimed  by  the  Dutch  during 
their  possession  of  the  Colony.     Schomburgk's  work  will  be  made 
the  subject  of  a  separate  chapter.     For  the  present  it  is  enough 
to  point   out  that  prior    to   his   tune  no    Dutch   or    British  offi- 
cial had  claimed  Baiima,  and  that  his  action  in  that  regard  gave 
rise  to   a  controversy    which    has  lasted   fifty-eight   years,  and 
which,  but  for  him,  would  never  have  involved  the  Barima  region. 
Confirming  Schomburgk's  views  that   whatever  right  Great 
Britain  had  to  the  Barima,  was  a  right  derived  from  the  Dutch, 
Governor  Light,  on  October  20,  1841,  in  writing  to  Senor  Aranda, 
I  spoke  of  the  "  occupation  of  the  Barima  by  the  Dutch,"  and  added 
'the  phrase,  "  from  whom  Great  Britain  derives  her  claim  "  (V.  C, 
I  vol.  iii,  p.  198). 

So  the  Earl  of  Aberdeen,  in  his  note  of  January  31st,  1842,  to 
Sr.  Fortique,  declared  that  in  removing  the  posts  erected  at  Barima 


84  DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE. 

and  Amacura  by  Schomburgk,  "  Her  Majesty's  Government  must 
not  be  understood  to  abandon  any  portion  of  the  rights  of  Great 
Britain  over  the  territory  which  was  formarly  held  by  the  Dutch 
in  Guiana''  (B.  C,  VII,  p.  80). 

This  view  of  the  matter  was  later  repeated  in  even  stronger 
terms  by  Lord  Aberdeen  in  his  note  of  March  30th,  1844,  to  Sr. 
Fortique,  where,  reviewing  the  whole  subject,  he  presented  Great 
Britain's  claim  at  length,  basing  it  exclusively  upon  an  alleged 
prior  Dutch  occupation. 

These  views,  that  British  rights  were  founded  exclusively  on 
Dutch  rights,  that  however  the  boundary  might  be  run,  it  was  a 
boundary  separating  former  Dutch  territory  from  former  Spanish 
territory,  and  that  there  was  no  such  thing  as  terra  nullius  be- 
tween them,  w^ere  in  complete  accord  with  historical  facts  and  with 
the  claims  of  all  prior  diplomatic  correspondence. 

The  formal  declaration  of  Lord  Aberdeen  on  this  subject  com- 
mitted Great  Britain  to  the  position  thus  taken.  Unless  Great 
Britain  can  show  that  she  has,  since  1844,  acquired  title  to  terri- 
tory which,  in  1844,  belonged  to  Venezuela,  her  position  must  still 
be  what  her  Prime  Minister  in  that  year  declared  it  to  be,  and  she 
should  be  held  to  it,  taking  the  consequences,  whatever  they 
may  be. 

We  have  said  that  Schomburgk's  survey  was  the  immediate 
cause  of  the  present  boundary  dispute.  The  origin  of  the  Schom- 
burgk line,  its  pubhcation  to  the  world,  and  its  claims  to  con- 
sideration, will  be  discussed  in  another  chapter.  As  a  link  in 
the  diplomatic  correspondence  under  examination,  only  that 
phase  of  it  will  now  be  considered  which  has  direct  reference  to 
the  extent  and  character  of  the  claims  put  forth  at  various  times 
by  Great  Britain. 

The  Schomburgk  line  was  intended,  both  by  Schomburgk  and 
by  the  British  Foreign  Office,  to  be  the  definition  of  Great 
Britain's  extreme  claim  founded  upon  Dutch  occupation.  Tlio 
line  involved   no   concession  to   Venezuelan    rights.      It  meant 


DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE.  85 

rio  surrender  of  British  territory.  It  was  an  expression  of  Great 
Britain's  Case  at  the  time.  Whatever  question  there  might  be  as 
to  territory  lying  to  the  east,  there  was  and  could  be  none  as  to 
that  lying  west.  That  territory,  past  all  doubt,  was  Venezuelan. 
Lord  Aberdeen  on  October  21  1841,  in  wiiting  to  Sefiot 
Fortique,  referred  to  Schomburgk  as  one  appointed  "to  survey 
and  mark  out  the  hoimda/ries  betiveen  British  Guinna  and' 
Venezuela'^  (V.  C.  Ill,  p.  199).  And  in  another  note  of  March' 
30th,  1844,  in  speaking  of  the  British  claim  to  the  Oriuoco  and  of 
the  Venezuelan  claim  to  the  Essequibo,  he  uses  this  language: 

"If  tlie  undersigned  were  inclined  to  adopt  tlie  spirit  of  M.  Fortique's 
note,  it  is  obvious,  from  what  has  been  stated,  that  he  must  claim  for  Great 
Britain,  in  her  riglit  of  succession  to  Holland,  the  entire  coast  from  the 
Orinoco  to  the  Essequibo.     .     .     , 

''  But  the  Undersigned  is  of  opinion  that  negotiations  are  not  facilitated 
by  putting  forward  claims  which  it  is  not  seriously  intended  to  maintain, 
and,  therefore,  he  will  not  follow  M.  Fortique's  example,  but  will  declare  at 
once  what  concessions /ro»i  her  extreme  claim  Great  Britain,  out  of  friendly 
regard  to  Venezuela,  and  from  a  desire  to  prevent  the  occurrence  of  any 
serious  differences,  is  willing  to  admit. 

*'  Believing,  then,  that  the  undivided  possession  of  the  Orinoco  is  the 
object  most  important  for  the  interests  of  Venezuela,  Her  Mnjesty's  Gov- 
ernment are  prepared  to  cede  to  the  Kepublic  a  portion  of  the  coast  amply 
sufficient  to  insure  Venezuela  against  the  mouth  of  this,  her  principal  river, 
being  at  the  command  of  any  foreign  Power.  With  this  view,  and  regard- 
ing it  as  a  most  valuable  concepsion  to  Venezuela,  her  Majesty's  Government 
are  willing  to  waive  their  claim  to  the  Amacura  as  the  western  boundary  of 
the  British  territory,  and  to  consider  the  mouth  of  the  Moroco  River  as 
tlie  limit  of  her  Majesty's  possessions  on  the  sea-coast. 

"They  will,  moreover,  consent  that  the  inland  boundary  shall  bo  marked 
Ijy  a  line  drawn  directly  from  the  mouth  of  the  Moroco  to  the  junction  of 
the  River  Barama  with  the  River  Waini,  thence  up  the  River  Barama  to 
the  Annama,  and  up  the  Annama  to  the  point  at  which  that  stream  ap- 
proaches nearest  to  the  Acarabisi,  and  thence  down  the  Acarabisi  to  its  con- 
fluence with  the  Cuyuni,  from  which  point  it  will  follow  the  bank  of  the 
Cuyuni  upwards  until  it  reaches  the  high  lands  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Mount  Roraima  which  divide  the  waters  flowing  into  the  Essequibo  from 
those  which  flow  into  the  Rio  Branco. 


so  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

"  All  the  territory  lying  bolwjen  a  line  such  as  is  here  described,  on  the 
one  side,  and  the  River  Amacura  and  the  chain  of  hills  from  which  the 
Amacura  rises,  on  the  other,  Great  Britain  is  willing  to  cede  to  Venezuela, 
upon  the  condition  that  the  Venezuelan  Government  enter  into  an  engage- 
ment that  no  portion  of  it  shall  be  alienated  at  any  time  to  a  foreign  Power, 
and  that  the  Indian  tribes  now  residing  within  it  shall  be  protected  against 
all  injury  and  oppression"  (B.  C,  VII,  p.  90). 

Now  the  line  proposed  above  as  the  boundary  to  be  agreed  upon 
is  what  has  come  to  be  known  as  the  Aberdeen  Line;  if  to  the  terri- 
tory lying  east  of  that  line  there  be  added  the  territory  described 
in  the  last  paragraph  above  cited  the  result  will  be  a  territory 
bounded  on  the  west  by  the  present  Schomburgk  Line.  Lord  Aber- 
deen's proposition  was  that  Great  Britain  should  keep  a  part  of  this 
territory,  and  should  cede  the  balance  to  Venezuela.  Of  course  this 
was  intended  to  be  a  complete  and  final  settlement  of  the  entire 
boundary  question;  Great  Britain  by  the  proposed  cession  forever 
extinguishing  all  claims  which  she  might  have  to  territory  beyond 
the  Aberdeen  Line.  This  proposed  cession,  however,  was  of  "  all 
the  territory  lying  between  a  line  such  as  is  here  described  (the 
Aberdeen  Line)  on  the  one  side,  and  the  River  Amacura  and  the 
chain  of  hills  from  which  the  Amacura  rises,  on  the  other."  If  this 
meant  anything  it  meant  that  that  was  the  only  territory  west  of 
the  Aberdeen  Line  to  which  Great  Britain  could  even  pretend  that 
she  had  a  claim;  or  in  other  words  that  the  Schomburgk  Line  con- 
stituted Great  Britain's  extreme  claim.  Even  this  extreme  claim, 
Lord  Aberdeen  admits,  it  was  "  not  seriously  intended  to  maintain," 
and  it  was  from  this  "  extreme  claim"  that  Great  Britain,  out  of 
friendly  regard  to  Venezuela,  "  was  willing  to  make  concessions." 
Were  it  necessary  more  evidence  might  be  referred  to  in  sup- 
port of  the  statement  that  the  Schomburgk  line  in  1841  rej) 
resented  the  extreme  British  claim.  Certainly  it  cannot  be 
necessary.  Even  the  evidence  already  cited  would  seem  to  be  in 
support  of  a  fact  too  clear  to  need  proof,  were  it  not  that  Great 
Britain's  extreme  claim  has  constantly  grown  since,  and  that  it 


DIPLOMATIC  COURESPONDENCE.  8? 

has  subsequently  been  seriously  argued  in  her  behalf  that  the 
Schomburgk  hne  represented  great  concessions  to  Venezuela;  that 
immense  tracts  lying  to  the  west,  and  which  for  centuries  have 
been  the  principal  site  of  Spanish  missions  and  villages,  belonged 
of  right  to  Great  Britain;  that  those  tracts  are  within  the  so- 
called  disputed  territory;  and  that  Venezuela's  continued  occupa- 
tion of  them  constituted  a  violation  of  the  agreement  of  1850. 

A  further  important  fact  to  be  noted  regarding  Schomburgk's 
survey  is  that  it  did  not  constitute  even  a  pretended  occupation  of 
the  disputed  territory.  The  correctness  of  this  statement  might 
well  be  questioned  were  it  not  that  we  are  bound  to  accept  upon 
this  point  the  word  and  assurances  of  no  less  a  person  than  Lord 
Aberdeen.  As  Prime  Minister  of  Great  Britain  he  distinctly  dis- 
claimed at  the  time  any  intention  to  occupy,  and  he  declared  that 
Schomburgk's  acts  were  not  to  be  construed  by  Venezuela  as  im- 
plying an  occupation.     The  following  are  Lord  Aberdeen's  words: 

"  The  Undersigned  begs  leave' to  refer  to  his  note  of  the  21st  October 
lust,  in  which  he  explained  to  M.  Fortique  that  the  proceeding  of  Mr. 
Schomburgk  in  planting  boundary  posts  at  certain  points  of  the  country 
which  he  has  surveyed  was  merely  a  preliminary  measure  open  to  future 
discussion  between  the  two  Governments,  and  that  it  would  be  pre- 
mature to  make  a  Boundary  Treaty  before  the  survey  shall  be  completed. 

"  The  Undersigned  has  only  fnrther  to  state  that  much  unnecessary 
inconvenience  would  result  from  the  removal  of  the  posts  fixed  by  Mr. 
Schomburgk,  as  they  will  afford  the  only  tangible  means  by  which  Her 
Majesty's  Government  can  be  prepared  to  discuss  the  question  of  the 
boundaries  with  the  Government  of  Venezuela.  Those  posts  were  erected 
for  that  express  purpose,  and  not,  as  the  Venezuelan  Government  appear 
to  apprehend,  as  indications  of  dominion  and  empire  on  ilie  part  of  Great 
Britain. 

"  And  the  Undersigned  is  glad  to  learn  from  M.  Fortique's  note  of  the 
8th  instant  that  the  two  Venezuelan  gentlemen  who  have  been  sent  by  their 
Government  to  British  Guiana  have  had  the  means  of  ascertaining  from  the 
Governor  of  that  Colony  that  the  British  authorities  have  not  occupied 
Point  Barima"  (B.  C.,  VII,  p.  79). 

That  the  Colonial  authorities  were  of  one   mind    with  Lord 

Aberdeen  on  this  subject  is  clear  from  the  language  of  Governor 


88  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

Light,  as  reported  by  Senor  i'ortique  to  the  Earl  of  Aberdeen. 
Sefior  Fortique  says: 

*•  The  second  is  tlie  conduct  observed  by  the  Governor  of  English 
Guiana  in  liis  conferences  with  the  Commissioners  v^^hom  the  Government 
of  ^'enezuela  accredited  to  him  with  the  view  of  asking  for  explanations  of 
those  demarcations,  as  he  manifested  to  them  *  that  inasmuch  as  the  real 
boundaries  between  the  two  Guianas  are  undefined  and  questionable,  the 
operation  of  Mr.  Schomhurgk  neither  han  nor  could  have  been  undertaken 
for  the  purpose  of  taking  possessioii,  but  only  in  the  way  of  simply  laying 
down  the  boundary-line  supposed  or  presumed  on  the  part  of  British 
Guiana,  and  that,  therefore,  while  the  confines  remain  undetermined,  the 
Government  of  Venezuela  ought  to  rest  assured  that  no  fort  ivould  be 
ordered  to  be  built  on  the  territory  in  question,  nor  that  any  soldiers  or 
force  whatever  would  be  sent  thither '  "  (B.  C,  VII,  p.  78). 

It  was  in  answer  to  this  that  Lord  Aberdeen  wrote  the  note 
before,  in  part  quoted. 

This,  then,  was  the  situation  when,  in  1841,  Lord  Aberdeen 
gave  his  consent  to  the  removal  of  the  Schomburgk  posts.  Great 
Britain  had  notified  Venezuela  of  the  commission  issued  to 
Schomburgk;  had  adopted  Schomburgk 's  work  as  an  expression  of 
the  extreme  British  claim;  had  rested  that  claim  upon  a  supposed 
former  Dutch  title;  had  disclaimed  any  intention  to  occupy  the 
Barima;  had  thereby  admitted  that  such  occupation  did  not  in  fact 
exist;  and,  yielding  to  the  force  of  Sr.  Fortique's  arguments,  had 
ordered  the  removal  of  every  semblance  of  British  dominion  from 
the  line  run  by  Schomburgk. 

The  order  for  the  removal  of  the  Schomburgk  posts  was  fol- 
lowed by  an  interchange  of  diplomatic  notes,  which  resulted  on 
March  30th,  1844,  in  Lord  Aberdeen's  proposal  of  the  line  which 
bears  his  name.  This  proposal  was  not  accepted  by  Venezuela, 
and  the  negotiations  were  thereupon  suspended. 

Matters  continued  in  this  unsettled  state  during  the  years 
from  1844  to  1850.  In  the  latter  year  rumors  were  circulated, 
on  the  one  hand,  that  Great  Britain  intended  to  "lay  claim  to 
the  Province  of    Venezuelan  Guiana"  (Blue    Book,    Venezuela 


DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE.  89 

(1896)  No.  1,  p.  256);  and,  on  the  other  hand,  that  Venezuela 
intended  to  erect  a  fort  at  Barima.  'J  hese  reports  were  communi- 
cated by  the  British  Minister  at  Caracas  to  the  Home  Government, 
and,  as  a  result,  the  former,  acting  under  instructions  from  Vis- 
count Palmerston,  on  November  18th,  1850,  addressed  a  note  to 
Sr.  Lecuna,  the  Venezuelan  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign 
Affairs.  In  this  note,  after  leferring  at  some  length  to  the 
rumors  above  mentioned,  he  said: 

"  The  Venezuelan  Government  cannot,  without  injustice  to  Great 
Britain,  distrust  for  a  moment  the  sincerity  of  the  formal  declaration,  now 
made  in  the  name  and  hy  express  order  of  Ilor  Majesty's  Government,  that 
Great  Britain  has  no  intention  of  occupying  or  encroacliing  upon  the  dis- 
puted territory;  hence,  in  a  like  spirit  of  good  faith  and  friendliness,  the 
Venezuelan  Government  cannot  object  to  make  a  similar  formal  declaration 
to  Her  Majesty's  Government,  namely,  that  Venezuela  herself  has  no  in- 
tention of  occupying  or  encroaching  upon  the  disputed  territory"  (V.  C, 
vol.  iii,  p.  212). 

To  this  Sr.  Lecuna  replied,  on  December  20th,  1850,  in  part, 
as  follows: 

"  By  order  of  His  Excellency,  the  President  of  the  Republic,  the  Un- 
dersigned begs  to  state  in  reply  that  the  Government  never  could  have 
persuaded  itself  that,  in  despite  of  the  negotiation  open  in  this  matter,  and 
of  the  rights  of  Venezuela  alleged  in  the  question  of  boundaries  pending 
between  the  two  countries.  Great  Britain  would  desire  to  employ  force  in 
order  to  occupy  the  territory  claimed  by  each  country;  much  less  could  the 
Government  think  this  possible  after  Mr.  Wilson  has  so  repeatedly  assured 
it,  and  as  the  Executive  Government  believes  with  sincerity,  that  these 
imputations  are  destitute  of  any  foundation  whatever,  and,  on  the  contrary, 
are  the  very  reverse  of  the  truth. 

"Reposing  in  this  confidence,  fortified  by  the  protestations  contained 
in  the  note  under  reply,  the  Government  has  no  difliculty  in  replying  that 
Venezuela  has  no  intention  to  occupy  or  encroach  upon  (-'usurpar")  any 
part  of  the  territory,  the  dominion  of  which  is  in  dispute,  and  that  it  will 
not  view  with  indiflference  that  Great  Britain  shall  act  otherwise"  (V.  C., 
vol.  iii,  p.  213). 

This  interchange  of  formal  declarations  is  what  has  come  to  be 
known  as  ''The  Agreement  of  1850."     In  subsequent  years  each 


90  DtPLOMATtC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

party  has  charged  the  other  with  violating  it.  It  will  be  well  to 
pause  for  a  moment  and  to  consider  certain  points  which  will  later 
be  useful  in  determining  the  truth  of  these  charges. 

Whether  or  not  the  Agreement  has  been  violated  depends,  in 
the  first  place,  upon  what  territory  was  intended  to  be  included 
within  its  provisions.  In  his  note  to  Sr.  Lecuna,  Mr.  Wilson  had 
used  the  phrase  "disputed  territory,"  without  defining  it  in  any 
way,  except  that  in  another  part  of  the  same  note  he  referred  to 
Point  Barima  as  a  place  "the  right  of  possession  to  which  is  in 
dispute  between  Great  Britain  and  Venezuela''  (Blue  Book,  Vene- 
zuela (1896)  No.  1,  p.  263). 

In  his  reply  Sr.  Lecuna  was  somewhat  more  explicit.  He  said 
that  the  Venezuelan  Government  could  never  have  persuaded 
itself  that  "Great  Britain  would  desire  to  employ  force  in  order  to 
occupy  the  ierriior?j  claimed  by  each  country,^''  and  then  declares 
his  own  country's  intention  not  to  occupy  "  any  part  of  the  terri- 
tory the  dominion  of  which  is  in  dispute  "  (V.  C.  vol.  iii,  p.  213). 

This  definition  of  the  "disputed  territory"  was  satisfactory  to 
the  British  Government,  and  must  therefore  be  taken  as  binding 
upon  it.  What  was  "the  territory  claimed  by  each  country"  in 
1850?  No  diplomatic  correspondence  on  the  subject  had  passed 
since  1844.  The  claims  made  by  each  Government  in  that  year 
still  held  good.     What  were  those  claims? 

So  far  as  Great  Britain  was  concerned  w^e  have  already  shown 
that  her  extreme  claim  did  not  go  beyond  the  Schomburgk  line. 
Indeed,  in  referring  to  that  boundary,  Lord  Aberdeen  had  dis- 
tinctly said  that  it  was  "not  seriously  intended  to  maintain"  it. 
It  is  clear  therefore  that  the  western  boundary  of  the  disputed 
territory  could  have  gone  no  further  than  the  Schomburgk  Line, 
if  indeed  it  went  even  as  far  as  that. 

The  eastern  boundary  is  equally  free  from  doubt.  Spain's  claim 
to  the  Essequibo  had  been  repeatedly  presented  to  Great  Britain. 
Referring  to  it,  in  his  note  of  March  30, 1844,  Lord  Aberdeen  says: 


i 


DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE.  91 

"Such  a  claim,  independently  of  all  question  of  right,  would  he  prac- 
tically far  less  injurious  to  Venezuela  than  that  which  M.  Fortique  has 
asserted  is  to  Great  Britain,  inasmuch  as,  whilst  Venezuela  is  without  a 
settlement  of  any  sort  upon  the  territory  in  question,  the  admission  of  the 
Esseqiiibo  as  theionndary  of  Venezuela  would  involve  at  once  the  surrender 
by  Great  Britain  of  about  half  the  Colony  of  Demerara,  including  Cartabo 
Point  and  the  Island  of  Kyk-over-al,  where  the  Dutch  had  their  earliest 
settlements  upon  the  Mazarnni,  the  missionary  establishment  at  Bartika 
Grove,  and  many  actually  existing  settlements  upon  the  Arabisi  coast  to 
within  50  miles  of  the  capital  "     (B.  C,  VII,  p.  90). 

This  may  seem  an  extreme  view,  from  the  British  standpoint; 
but,  extreme  or  not,  there  was  the  claim;  and  in  1850  the  British 
Government  accepted  Sr.  Lecuna's  description  of  the  "disputed 
territory  "as  "  territory  claimed  by  each  country.^''  Great  Britain 
bound  herself  to  respect  that  claim,  and  to  neither  "occupy  or 
encroach"  upon  that  territory.  It  is,  indeed,  reasonable  to  sup 
pose  that  neither  government  expected,  at  the  time,  that  any 
plantations  or  settlements  actually  located  within  the  disputed 
territory  were  to  be  withdrawn.  Indeed,  the  agreement  did  not 
contemplate  evacuation.  It  provided  that  the  territory  in  dispute 
should  not  be  occupied  or  encroached  upon;  and  such  a  stipulation, 
if  interpreted  as  it  might  well  be  as  having  regard  to  the  future, 
is  quite  consistent  with  the  continuance  of  the  plantations  then 
existing  along  the  Arabian  coast.  Its  sole  effect  with  regard  to 
them  would  be  to  stop  the  running  of  any  prescription  which 
might  otherwise  be  claimed  in  their  favor. 

But  Lord  Aberdeen  is  by  no  means  the  only  witness  to  the  fact 
that  practically  the  entire  territory  between  the  Schomburgk  line 
and  the  Essequibo  was  to  be  treated  as  disputed  territory.  On 
November  19,  1850,  the  very  day  following  the  British  declara- 
tion that  it  would  not  encroach  upon  this  territory,  Mr.  Wilson, 
the  British  Minister,  in  a  despatch  to  Viscount  Palmerston,  said: 

"Considering,  however,  the  intrigues  on  foot  to  mislead  and  excite  the 
public  mind  by  the  malicious  assertion  of  the  occupation  of  '  Fuerte  Viejo  ' 
by  British  troops,"  etc.  (V.  C,  vol.  iii.  p.  212). 


^^  DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE. 

Now,  Fuerfe  Viejo  appears  under  the  name  of  Viejo  Fuerte  in 
Codazzi's  map.  So  far  as  we  are  aware  it  occurs  in  no  other 
map.  In  Codazzi's  map  it  is  identified  with  Kykoveral,  long  since 
abandoned  by  both  Dutch  and  British.  How  long  must  it  have 
been  abandoned,  and  how  far  removed  from  actual  British  settle- 
ments must  it  have  been  for  Mr.  Wilson  to  have  indignantly  re- 
ferred to  the  •'  malicious  assertion  "  that  the  British  had  occupied 
it?  His  reference  to  it  at  this  time  and  in  this  way  is  proof  that 
he  regarded  it  as  located  within  the  disputed  territory. 

So  matters  stood  in  1850.  Both  Governments  excluded  them- 
selves from  this  disputed  territory;  and  so  long  as  the  agreement 
continued  neither  Government,  by  acts  in  violation  of  it,  could 
acquire  title  to  the  territory  in  question. 

In  187C  and  1877,  an  ineffectual  effort  was  made  by  Venezuela 
to  arrive  at  some  settlement  regarding  the  boundary.  Notes  were 
addressed  by  Sr.  Calcano  and  Sr.  de  Rojas  to  the  Earl  of  Derby, 
but  nothing  came  of  them.  In  1879,  the  question  was  once  more 
brought  to  the  attention  of  the  British  Government,  and  negotia- 
tions were  begun  with  the  Marquis  of  Salisbury. 

In  a  note  dated  May  10, 1879,  Senor  de  Rojas  called  attention  to 
the  fact  that  thirty-eight  years  had  passed  since  Venezuela  had 
first  urged  Her  Majesty's  Government  to  conclude  a  Boundary 
Treaty.  He  referred  to  the  line  of  right  which  Venezuela  claimed, 
and  stated  that  his  Government  was  prepared  to  arbitrate  that 
right.  At  the  same  time  he  suggested  that  Great  Britain  might 
prefer  to  agree  to  a  line  of  accomodation  or  "convenience,"  and 
that  if  so  he  was  prepared  to  negotiate  on  that  basis. 

Lord  Salisbury's  reply,  while  it  contained  an  important  admis- 
sion, showed  how  the  British  view  had  changed  since  Lord  Aber- 
deen's day.  It  contained  an  important  admission  because  it  recog- 
nized the  fact  that  this  boundary  question  cannot  be  decided,  as  a 
matter  of  right,  without  taking  into  account  the  rights  that,  under 
the  rules  of  international  law,  belong  to  discovery,  first  settle-^ 


DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE.  93 

ment,  conquest,  cession  and  treaties.     These  are  Lord  Salisbury's 
words: 

''  With  regard  to  the  tirst  of  these  questions,  I  have  the  honour  to  state 
that  Her  Majesty's  Government  are  of  opinion  that  to  argue  the  mat- 
ter on  the  ground  of  strict  right  would  involve  so  many  intricate  ques- 
tions co)inectedwitli  the  original  discovery  and  settlement  of  the  country,  and 
subsequent  conquests,  cessions,  and  Treaties,  that  it  would  be  very  inlikely 
to  lead  to  a  satisfactory  solution  of  the  question"  (B.  C,  VII,  p.  96). 

In  view  of  subsequent  British  statements,  which  seem  to  treat 
the  question  of  discovery,  first  settlement,  conquest,  cession  and 
treaties  as  something  having  nothing  to  do  with  this  case,  this  state- 
ment of  Lord  Salisbury,  which  is  in  entire  accord  with  the  views 
of  the  most  accredited  writei^s  on  international  law,  and  which  has 
reference  to  this  particular  boundary  dispute,  is  most  important. 

Having  thus  committed  himself  to  the  principles  referred  to, 
Lord  Salisbury  proceeded  to  define  the  extent  and  the  basis  of 
Great  Britain's  extreme  claim.    These  are  his  words: 

"The  boundary  which  Her  Majesty's  Government  claim,  in  virtue  of 
ancient  Treaties  with  the  aboriginal  tribes  and  of  subsequent  cessions  from 
Holland,  commences  at  a  point  at  the  moutii  of  the  Orinoco,  westward  of 
Point  Barimu,  proceeds  thence  in  a  southerly  direction  to  the  Imataca 
Mountains,  the  line  of  which  it  follows  to  the  north-west,  passing  from 
them  by  the  Highlands  of  Santa  Maria  just  south  of  the  town  of  Upata 
until  it  strikes  a  range  of  hills  on  the  eastern  bank  of  the  Caroni  River, 
following  these  southwards  until  it  strikes  the  great  backbone  of  the 
Guiana  district,  the  lioraima  Mountains  of  British  Guiana,  and  thence, 
still  southward,  to  the  Pacarainia  Mountains"  (B.  C,  VII,  p.  96). 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  point  out  the  enormous  jump  which 
the  British  "extreme  claim"  thus  took.  It  was,  indeed,  a  re- 
markable growth  for  thirty-six  years,  since  the  time  when  Lord 
Aberdeen  had  proposed  to  cede  to  Venezuela  the  Barima-Waini 
region;  at  that  time  Lord  Aberdeen  contenting  himself  with  the 
mouth  of  the  Moruca  on  the  coast,  had  probably  "compensated  " 
himself  in  the  interior  by  claiming  west  as  far  as  the  great  bend 
of  the  Cuyuui.  That  claim  may  have  done  very  well  for  1844,  but 
1880  deujanded  greater  things,  and  so  about  15,000,000  acres  were 
suddenly  added  to  Great  Britain's  pretensions. 


94  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE. 

It  will  be  noted,  too,  that  the  basis  of  the  British  title  had 
b*en  modified.  Schomburgk,  Lord  Aberdeen,  and  all  who  went 
before,  had  been  content  to  rest  British  i-ights  upon  the  former 
Dutch  occupancy.  Whether  or  not  doubts  had  in  the  meantime 
arisen  at  the  Foreign  Office  in  London  regarding  the  sufficiency  of 
such  Dutch  rights,  the  fact  is  that  another  source  of  Dutch  title 
was  now  for  the  first  time  alleged,  and  "ancient  Treaties  with  the 
aboriginal  tribes  "  were  now  for  the  first  time  invoked. 

These  treaties  must  have  antedated  the  Dutch  cession,  for  that 
cession  is  referred  to  by  Lord  Salisbury  as  something  subsequent. 
What  these  treaties  may  have  been,  we  are  at  a  loss  to  know. 
They  are  not  given  in  either  the  British  Case  or  Counter-Case,  and 
no  explanation  of  them  has  ever  been  vouchsafed.  If,  in  fact, 
they  were  ever  made,  or  if,  as  seems  more  likely.  Lord  Salisbury 
was  misinformed  regarding  them,  it  is  very  certain — for  reasons 
set  forth  in  another  Chapter  of  this  Brief— that  they  could  have 
conferred  no  rights  of  sovereignty  upon  Great  Britain.  The  sub- 
sequent diplomatic  correspondence,  and  the  Case  and  Counter-Case 
submitted  to  the  Arbitral  Tribunal  by  Great  Britain,  would  seem 
to  indicate  that  this  claim  of  title  based  on  Indian  treaties  has 
been  abandoned. 

The  Marquis  of  Salisbury  was  succeeded  shortly  by  Earl 
Granville,  and  the  negotiations  begun  with  the  former  were 
continued  with  the  latter.  Propositions  and  counter-proposi- 
tions were  followed,  on  September  15th,  1881,  by  a  proposal 
from  Lord  Granville  for  the  adoption  of  the  line  since  known 
as  the  Granville  line.  The  memorandum  submitted  by  Earl 
Granville  with  his  note  of  that  date  contains  two  passages 
which  demand  attention.     They  are   the  following: 

"  As  regards   that  portion   of   the   territory    which    lies   between    the 

und  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco,  ller  Majesty's  Government 

bjlievc  that  that  no  impartial  person,  after  studying  the  records,  can  escape 
the  conviciion  that  the  Barinia  was  undoubtedly  before,  and  at  the  time  of 
the  conclusion  of  the  Treaty  of  Munster  (1G48),  held  by  the  Dutch,  and 
that  the  right  of  Her  Majesty's  Government  to  the  territory  up  to  that 
point  is  in  consequence  unassailable  (B.  C,  VII,  p.  99). 


DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE.  96 

"  This  boundary  [referring  to  his  proposed  line]  will  snrrender  to  Ven- 
ezuela what  has  been  called  the  Dardanelles  of  the  Orinoco.  It  will  give 
to  Venezuela  the  entire  command  of  the  mouth  of  that  river,  and  it  yields 
about  one-half  of  the  disputed  territory,  while  it  secures  to  British  Guiana, 
a  well-defined  natural  boundary  along  almost  its  whole  course,  except 
for  about  the  first  50  miles  inland  from  the  sea,  where  it  is  necessary  to  lay 
down  an  arbitrary  boundary  in  order  to  secure  to  Venezuela  the  undis- 
turbed possession  of  the  mouths  of  the  Orinoco;  but  even  here  advantage 
has  been  taken  of  well  defined  natural  land-marks.  The  Barima,  con- 
nected as  before  mentioned  by  its  tributaries  with  the  centre  of  the  country 
of  Essequibo,  is  also  connected  with  the  Waini  by  a  channel  through  which 
the  tide  flows  and  ebbs  "  (B.  C,  VII,  p.  100). 

Both  of  these  paragraphs,  taken  in  connection  with  Earl 
Granville's  proposition  to  draw  a  line  which  should  give 
Barima  to  Venezeula,  show  that  Earl  Granville  was  in  ac- 
cord with  Lord  Aberdeen,  both  as  to  the  basis  of  Great 
Britain's  claim  to  Barima,  and  as  to  the  superior  right  of  Venez- 
uela to  the  same  place  upon  the  principle  of  security. 

Lord  Granville  distinctly  says  that  "  the  right  of  Her  Majesty's 
Government  to  the  territory  up  to"  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco 
was  "in  consequence  "  of  a  supposed  former  Dutch  possession  of 
Barima.  Indeed,  he  goes  even  further,  and  by  implication  admits 
that  such  supposed  Dutch  possession,  in  order  to  have  been  effect- 
ive, must  have  antedated  the  Treaty  of  Munster,  and  must  have 
continued  to  the  very  date  of  that  Treaty.  This  is  certainly  good 
law. 

In  the  second  paragraph  above  quoted  (which  is  the  ninth  of 
the  memorandum)  Lord  Granville  recognizes  the  superior  right  of 
Venezuela  to  Barima  on  the  principle  of  security.  It  would  be 
difficult  to  improve  on  Earl  Granville's  language.  His  testimony 
to  the  fact  that  Barima  and  the  region  thereabout  constituted  the 
"  Dardanelles  of  the  Orinoco  "  is  testimony  to  a  fact— a  fact  which 
should  be  controlling  in  this  controversy.  On  the  other  hand,  his 
proposition  to  surrender  the  Barima  to  Venezuela  "  ^?^  order  to 
secure  to  Venezuela  the  undisputed  possession  of  the  mouths  of  the 


■ 


96  DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE. 

Orinoco"  is  a  recognition  of  the  principle  of  security  and  of  the 
right  of  Venezuela  to  have  awarded  to  her  whatever  might  be 
necessary  to  insure  that  security  to  her  Orinoco  settlements. 

Later  correspondence  of  Lord  Granville  shows  how  fully  he 
recognized  this  principle  of  security,  and  proves  that  while  he 
was  prepaied  to  concede  the  application  of  the  principle  to  Vene- 
zuela as  her  right,  he  was  also  influenced  by  it  in  considering 
what  territory  Great  Britain  must  herself  have. 

It  was  on  May  25th,  1883,  that  he  thus  wrote  to  Colonel  Mans- 
field: 

"  It  was  considered  that  the  proposals  then  made  would  yield  to 
Venezuela  every  reasonable  requirement,  while  securing  the  interests  of 
British  (Juiana,  and  that  any  further  Concession  to  Venezuela  than  is 
proposed  in  the  Memorandum  which  was  transmitted  to  you  with  my 
despatch  of  the  30th  September,  1881,  would  have  the  effect  of  bring- 
ing the  boundary-line  into  inconvenient  proximity  to  the  settled  dis- 
tricts of  the  Colony  of  Britisii  Guiana,  and  would  tend  to  deprive  the 
Colonial  Government  of  complete  control  over  the  water  system  of  its 
territory"  (B.C.,  VII,  p.  103.) 

Here  we  see  clearly  that,  even  as  applied  to  Great  Britain,  who 
represented  the  title  of  a  second  comer,  Lord  Granville  was  of 
opinion  that  no  line  should  be  drawn  which  would  bring  Venezu- 
ela within  '^  incoHveuient  proximity''''  to  the  settled  districts  of 
the  Colony,  or  which  should  deprive  Great  Britain  "of  complete 
control  over  the  water  systein  of  its  territory."  If  Venezuela 
were  to  receive  no  more  than  that  at  the  hands  of  this  Tri- 
bunal, she  would  have  awarded  to  her  the  whole  of  the  Barima- 
Waini  region  as  far  as  the  mouth  of  the  Moruca,  for  not  other- 
wise can  she  enjoy  that  "complete  control"  of  her  water  sys- 
tem, which  Lord  Granville  invoked  as  a  correct  principle  to 
apply  to  the  case  of  even  a  second  comer. 

Earl  Granville's  propositions  were  not  accepted  by  Venezuela. 
Negotiations  continued,  and  had,  in  1885,  reached  a  point  where 
an  arbitration  of  the  question  had  been  agreed  to.  At  this  stage 
Lord  Granville  was  succeeded  by  Lord  Salisbury,  who  withdrew 


DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE.  97 

the  consent  of  the  British  Government  previously  given  to  arbi- 
tration, and  the  question  of  boundary  was  once  more  set  afloat 
on  the  sea  of  diplomacy. 

The  next  two  years  witnessed  a  series  of  unsuccessful  efforts 
to  settle  the  question— efforts  which,  unfortunately,  in  February, 
1887,  resulted  in  the  suspension  of  diplomatic  relations  between 
the  two  countries.  The  immediate  cause  of  this  suspension  was 
an  invasion  of  the  Barima-Waini  region  by  Great  Britain,  an 
invasion  which  Venezuela  resented  as  a  violation  of  the  Agree- 
ment of  1850.  Great  Britain  alleged  in  justification  of  herself 
that  Venezuela  had  herself  first  violated  that  Agreement.  To 
determine  the  truth  of  the  matter,  we  must  go  back  a  few 
years. 

Up  to  1863  there  was,  so  far  as  appears,  no  infraction  of  the 

Agreement  of   1850  by  either  Government— understanding,    of 

course,  that  this  Agreement  referred  to  only  that  territory  which 

was  in  dispute  in  1850.     In  1863  an  English  Mining  Company  was 

formed  in   Georgetown   to  work   mines   located  on  the  Cuyuni, 

about  two  days'  journey  above  its  mouth,   and  from  twenty  to 

thirty  days'  journey  below  Tupuquen— that  is  to  say,  located  close 

to  the  Essequibo  River.     In  1867  the  British  Government  caused 

a  notice  to   be  given  to  the  Company  to  the  effect  that  if  the 

Company  continued  its  operations  in  the  disputed  territory,  those 

going  there  would  be  regarded  as  adventurers    not  entitled   to 

British  protection  (V.  C,  vol.  i,  p.  183).     The  Company  came  to 

an  end,  and  the  action  of  the  British  Government  in  giving  the 

above  notice  proves  that   it  looked   upon   the  locality  where  the 

[  mines  were  as  a  part  of  the  disputed  territory,  and  that  it  still 

j  considered  itself  bound  by  the  Agreement  of  1860. 

I        Between  1880  and  1882,  British  mining  exploration  of  the  in- 

i  terior   was    renewed;    and    during  the  latter    year    the  Puruni 

I  River,  a  branch  of  the  Mazaruni,  became  known  as  a  rich  gold 

f 

li  field     (V.  C,  vol.  iii,  p.  323).     The   Puruni  was   much   further 
in  the  disputed  territory  than  the  mines  which  had  been  worked 


9g  DIPLOMATIC   COKRKSPONDKNCE. 

in  1H63  to  1867;  and,  of  course,  if  the  British  Government  had 
intended  to  observe  the  Agreement  of  1850,  it  would  have  put 
a  stop  to  these  new  mining  operations  just  as  it  had  done  to 
the  operations  of  the  Georgetown  Company  in  1867.  Instead 
of  doing  this,  the  British  Government,  in  1884,  actually  estab- 
lished regulations  for  the  work;  established  ofifices  for  the  col- 
lection of  revenue  from  these  mines;  and  imposed  upon  the 
gold  produced  a  royalty  which  was  thereafter  regularly  col- 
lected (V.  C,  vol.  iii,  p.  323).  Here  was  clearly  an  infraction 
by  Great  Britain  of  the  Agreement  of  1850. 

Prior  to  1884,  the  Venezuelan  Government  had  granted  three 
different  concessions  for  lands  bordering  on  British  Guiana. 
There  is  not,  and  never  has  been,  any  pretence  that  any 
actual  entry  was  ever  made  under  any  of  these  grants  into  any 
part  of  the  territory  which  was  in  dispute  in  1850;  but  the 
granting  of  these  concessions  was,  in  1884,  used  by  the  British 
Government  as  a  pretext  for  taking  formal  possession  of  the 
Barima-Waini  region  as  far  west  as  the  River  Amacura. 

The  first  of  these  concessions,  dated  May  12th,  1881,  was 
granted  to  General  Pulgar.  It  gave  the  right  to  work  mines 
'*in  the  State  of  Guayana,"  to  construct  railroads  in  that 
State,  and  to  enjoy  exclusive  use  of  its  water  ways.  It  con- 
tained nothing  derogatory  to  British  rights  in  the  disputed  ter- 
ritory; and  no  one  under  its  authority  ever  set  foot  in  that 
territory.  If,  as  the  British  Case  alleges,  General  Pulgar  ever 
published  a  map  claiming  any  part  of  the  disputed  territory 
as  included  in  his  grant,  that  map  was  prepared  and  published 
without  the  sanction  or  knowledge  of  the  Venezuelan  Government. 
The  second  concession  was  granted  to  C.  C.  Fitzgerald  on  Sep- 
tember 22nd,  1883.  It  conferred  upon  the  grantee  certain  rights 
in  the  Island  of  Pedernales,  and  also  in  the  following  described 
territory : 

"The  territory  from  the  mouth  of  the  Araguao,  the  shore  of  the  At- 
lantic Ocean,  the  waters  above  the  Greater  Araguao,  to  where  it  is  joined  by 


DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE.  99 

the  Araguaito  stream,  from  this  point  following  the  Araguaito  to  the  Orin- 
oco, and  thence  the  waters  of  the  Upper  Orinoco  surrounding  the  Island  of 
Tortola,  which  will  form  part  of  the  territories  conceded,  to  the  junction 
of  the  Jose  stream  with  the  Piacoa,  from  this  point  following  the  waters  of 
the  Jose  stream  to  its  source,  thence  in  a  straight  line  to  the  summit  of  the 
Imataca  range,  from  this  summit  following  the  sinuosities  and  more  ele- 
vated summits  of  the  ridge  of  Imataca  to  the  limit  of  the  British  Guiana, 
from  this  limit  and  along  it  toward  the  north  to  the  shore  of  the  Atlantic 
Ocean,  and  lastly  from  the  point  indicated,  the  shore  of  the  Atlantic  Ocean, 
to  the  mouth  of  the  Araguao,  including  the  island  of  this  name,  and  the 
others  intermediate  or  situated  in  the  Delta  of  the  Orinoco,  and  in  contig- 
uity with  the  shore  of  the  said  ocean."     (B.  C,  VI,  p.  219.) 

Mr.  Fitzgerald  having  obtained  this  concession,  which  it  is 
needless  to  point  out  does  not  in  any  way  encroach  upon  British 
territory  since  it  is  in  terms  limited  "^o  the  limit  of  the  British 
Guiana,"  appears  to  have  published  a  map  and  a  prospectus, 
both  of  which  are  reproduced  in  the  Appendix  to  the  British 
Case.  Neither  the  map  nor  the  prospectus  was  issued  with  either 
the  sanction  or  the  knowledge  of  the  Venezuelan  Government, 
and  no  possession  was,  under  the  authority  of  that  concession, 
ever  taken  of  any  land  within  the  disputed  territory. 

The  third  concession  was  to  Herbert  Gordon,  and  was  dated 

May  21st,  1884.     The  limits  of  this  concession  were  as  follows: 

"  On  the  north  the  highest  points  of  the  Imataca  range,  and  the  lands 
granted  to  C.  0.  Fitzgerald;  on  the  south  the  chain  of  Pacaraima;  on  the 
west  a  straight  line  drawn  from  the  peak  of  Barlina  in  the  Imataca  range, 
passing  the  torrent  and  hills  of  Tasconi,  and  ending  in  the  Pacaraima  chain; 
mid  on  the  east  British  Ouayana."    (IJ.  C,  VI,  p.  221.) 

Under  this  concession  no  possession  of  any  part  of  the  disputed 
territory  was  taken,  and  it  will  be  observed  that  the  concession 
itself  was  in  terras  bounded  on  the  east  by  British  Ouiana. 

None  of  these  concessions  were  regarded  seriously  by  the  British 
Government.  It  was  clearly  understood  by  the  British  author- 
ities that  the  maps  and  prospectuses  published  by  the  concessiouees 
were  not  issued  under  Government  authority.  Colonel  Mansfield, 
writing  to  Earl  Granville  on  July  26th,  1884,  said: 


100  PIPLOMATIC   COBKESPO^DJ!,^UE. 

*•  I  have  the  honour  to  report  to  your  Lordship  that  the  Venezuelan 
Governmeut  has  constituted  a  new  '  Federal  Territory'  under  the  name  of 
the  *  Federal  Territory  of  the  Delta  of  the  Orinoco,'  which,  according  to  the 
Decree,  is  to  be  bounded  on  the  east  hy  British  Guiana,  actual  frontier  not 
specified. 

"A  Governor  and  staff  of  officials  have  been  api)ointed,  and  the  site  of 
the  capital,  which  is  to  be  called  Munoa,  has  been  selected  on  the  south- 
easternmost  branch  of  the  Orinoco,  or  jxjrhaps  more  properly  on  the  extreme 
right  channel  of  the  Delta. 

*' I  beg  to  enclose  a  small  map,  more  or  less  giviug  the  limits  of  the 
new  territory.  This  map  has  been  published  by  Mr.  Fitzgerald,  of  the 
Manoa  Gomp;iny,  who  has  a  concession  for  colonizing  the  district,  and  not 
upon  the  authority  of  the  Vetiezuelan  Government,  whose  Decree,  as  I 
mentioned  above,  merely  speaks  of  British  Guiana  as  the  limit. 

"  The  above  is  of  interest  in  connection  with  the  pending  question  of 
the  limits  of  British  Guiana."    (B.  0.,  VI,  p.  2:^3.) 

When  Colonel  Mansfield  thus  wrote,  all  three  of  the  conces- 
sions above  mentioned  had  been  gi"anted;  and  it  is  clear  from  the 
way  in  which  he  refers  to  them  that  the  thought  of  their  consti- 
tuting an  infraction  of  the  Agreement  of  1850  never  occurred  to 
him.  Lord  Granville  evidently  took  the  same  view  of  the  matter, 
for,  referring  to  the  Gordon  concession,  he  w^rote  to  Colonel  Mans- 
field on  August  19th,  1884,  as  follows: 

"  I  have  communicated  to  Her  Majesty's  Principal  Secretary  of  State 
for  the  Colonies  your  despatch  of  the  2nd  ultimo  relating  to  a  contract  signed 
on  the  21st  May,  whereby  a  concession  has  been  granted  by  the  Venezuelan 
Government  to  Herbert  Gordon,  an  inhabitant  of  the  Federal  territory  of 
Yuruary,  for  the  colonization  of  a  large  district,  the  sovereignty  over  which 
is  claimed  both  by  Her  Majesty's  Government  and  by  that  of  Venezuela. 

"  With  reference  to  this  mutter,  I  have  to  request  that  you  will  find 
means  to  caution  Mr.  Goi-don  that  his  concession  would  not  be  of  any  valid- 
ity in  re8i)ect  of  any  territory,  proving  to  be  English,  which  it  may  purport 
to  cover. 

*'  You  should  also  find  an  opportunity  to  convey  an  intimation  to  the 
same  effect  to  the  Government  of  Venezuela,  in  order  to  guard  against  the 
possibility  liereafter  of  the  tacit  acquiescence  of  Her  Majesty's  Government 
in  the  concession  being  advanced  in  support  of  the  claim  of  Venezuela  to 
the  district  in  dispute."    (B.  C,  VI,  p  z2d.) 


DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE.  101 

On  October  9,  1884,  Colonel  Mansfield  wrote  to  Earl  Gran- 
ville as  follows: 

"  I  am  informed  that  the  Manoa  Company  is  but  a  shadowy  affair, 
not  to  call  it,  as  my  informant  did,  a  mere  bubble  with  a  mendacious 
prospectus;  while  Mr.  Gordon  is  living  in  a  needy  manner  in  Caracas 
and  La  Guayra,  which  does  not  look  like  colonizing  a  district  half  the 
size  of  Belgium."     (B.  C,  VI,  p.  224.) 

Certainly  Colonel  Mansfield  did  not  regard  this  "concession" 
as  a  very  serious  affair;  and  so  little  bearing  did  he  consider  that 
it  had  upon  the  Agreement  of  1850  that  when,  on  the  same  day, 
he  wrote  to  the  Venezuelan  Minister,  informing  him  of  the  notice 
which  he  had  given  Gordon  and  Fitzgerald  that  their  concessions 
would  not  be  regarded  as  valid  in  respect  of  territory  claimed  by 
Great  Britain,  instead  of  complaining  of  any  infraction  of  the 
Agreement  of  1850  by  Venezuela,  he  limited  himself  to  making 
the  following  representation: 

"  Lord  Granville  also  wishes  me  to  convey  an  intimation  to  the  same  effect 
to  the  Government  of  Venezuela,  in  order  to  guard  against  the  possibility 
hereafter  of  the  tacit  acquiescence  of  Her  Majesty's  Government  in  the 
concessions  being  advanced  in  support  of  the  claim  of  Venezuela  to  the 
districts  in  dispute. 

"  I  have  the  honour  to  request  your  Excellency  to  explain  to  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  Republic  that  the  above  intimation  is  not  inspired  in  the 
smallest  degree  by  a  spirit  of  hostility,  but  simply  to  guard  against  a 
misunderstanding  in  any  future  discussion  of  the  boundary,  a  question 
which  your  Excellency  is  well  aware  is  one  of  long  standing,  and  which  Her 
Majesty's  Government  would  gladly  see  brought  to  a  satisfactory  solution." 
(B.C.,  VI,  p.  224). 

It  was  in  the  same  month  of  October,  1884,  that,  according  to 
the  testimony  of  Sir  Henry  Irving,  Governor  of  British  Guiana, 
an  agent  of  the  Manoa  Company  posted  up  certain  notices  on  the 
east  side  of  the  Amacura  River.  These  notices  were  to  the  effect 
that  all  persons  holding  land  on  the  Company's  property  should 
communicate  with  the  Company.  It  will  be  noted  that  the  post- 
ing of  these  notices  was  not  an  act  of  the  Venezuelan  Government; 
and  even  if  it  had  been  it  would  not  have  constituted  any  occupa- 


102  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

tion  of  the  disputed  territory;  but,  whatever  the  character  of  the 
act  itself,  the  letter  in  which  the  British  Governor  communicated 
the  information  to  the  Earl  of  Derby  furnishes  the  best  possible 
proof  of  the  way  in  which,  for  years  before  that  time,  Great 
Britain  had,  in  the  disputed  territory,  been  doing  systematically 
things  of  a  far  more  serious  nature  and  about  whose  official  char- 
acter and  meaning  there  could  be  no  doubt.  This  is  what  Sir 
Henry  Irving  had  to  say: 

*'  Information  having  lately  reached  me  that  notices,  of  which  I  enclose 
a  specimen,  were  being  served  by  the  agent  of  a  Company  styling  itself 
*  The  Manoa  Company,  Limited,'  on  the  inhabitants  of  the  territory  lying 
on  this  side  of  the  Amacura  River,  I  deemed  it  proper  to  dispatch  an  officer 
of  this  Government  to  the  district  to  ascertain  and  report  on  the  operations 
of  the  Company. 

"  2.  I  selected  for  this  duty  Mr.  McTurk,  tlie  Acting  Special  Magistrate 
of  the  Pomeroon  district;  and  I  have  the  honour  to  transmit  to  your  Lord- 
ship copies  of  the  instructions  with  which  I  caused  him  to  be  furnished 
and  of  his  report.  I  also  inclose  copies  of  letters  which  I  have  received  from 
the  President  pro  tem.  of  the  Manoa  Company,  accompanied  by  a  pros- 
pectus and  map. 

"  3.  The  Company  has,  it  will  be  seen,  obtained  a  concession  from  the 
Venezuelan  Government  of  the  territory  lying  between  the  Orinoco  and  the 
boundary-line  of  British  Guiana.  The  line  is  not  defined  iy  the  concession, 
but  the  Company  have  de6ned  it  for  themselves  by  exhibiting  in  their  map 
and  prospectus  the  Moruca  River  as  the  limit  of  their  grant. 

"4.  This  is  a  definition  against  which  the  Colonial  Government  is 
bound  to  protest.  Its  effect  would  be  to  sever  from  the  Colony  the  whole 
of  the  territory  lying,  between  the  Moruca  and  the  Amacura  Rivers, 
within  which  the  Colonial  Government  has  exercised  jurisdiction  for  a  long 
series  of  years,  to  hand  over  to  the  tender  mercies  of  a  Foreign  Joint  Stock 
Company  a  considerable  population  of  aboriginal  Indians,  many  of  whom 
have  taken  refuge  in  this  territory  from  Venezuelan  ill-usage,  and  who 
have  learnt  to  regard  themselves  as  living  under  British  rule  and  under  the 
protection  of  British  law;  and  to  surrender  to  a  foreign  power  a  control 
over  the  inland  water  communication  of  the  Colony  which  would  now  be  a 
source  of  embarrassment  to  the  Government,  and  which  might  in  the 
future  endanger  the  safety  of  the  Colony. 

"  6.  The  boundary  between  Venezuela  and  British  Guiana  being  unset- 
tled, the  Colonial  Oovernment  has  had  to  determine  for  itself  the  limits  of 


DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE.  103 

its  jurisdiction.  This  it  could  only  do  by  adopting  some  definite  boundary 
line,  and  it  has  taken  for  the  purpose  the  line  of  compromise  suggested  by 
Sir  R.  Schomburgh,  which,  as  your  Lordship  is  aware,  is  considerably 
within  the  territorial  claim  of  Great  Britain.  Although  that  line  has  never 
been  officially  recognized  by  both  Governments,  it  has  for  a  long  series  of 
years  been  taken  for  all  practical  purposes  as  the  settled  boundary  of  the 
Colony.  In  illustration  of  this,  I  may  state  that  in  criminal  cases  juris- 
diction has  been  from  time  to  time  proved  by  showing  that  the  crime 
occurred  at  a  place  07i  the  British  Guiana  side  of  that  boundary  line.  The 
definite  line  thus  adopted  and  recognized  can  only  be  given  up  if  another 
definite  line  be  adopted  under  proper  sanction. 

"  6.  The  concession  from  the  Venezuelan  Government  to  the  Manoa 
Company  is  to  the  boundary  of  British  Guiana,  without  defining  such 
boundary;  au'l  it  does  not,  therefore,  in  terms,  appear  to  interfere  luith  the 
rights  of  the  Colony.  The  Company,  however,  under  color  of  the  Vene- 
zuelan claims,  are  now  seeking  to  exercise  proprietary  rights  within  the 
Colony,  and  are  interfering  with  the  inhabitants. 

"  7.  In  these  circumstances,  the  Colonial  Government  has  no  alternative 
but  to  oppose  the  claims  of  the  Company,  and  to  take  steps  for  the  main- 
tenance of  order  and  for  the  protection  of  life  and  property. 

"  8.  The  means  I  shall  propose  to  adopt  for  tiiis  purpose  would  be  the 
employment  of  a  revenue  schooner  carrying  a  small  force  of  police,  and  the 
erection  of  one  or  more  temporary  buildings  at  the  mouths  of  the  Amacura, 
Barima,  and  Waini  Rivers,  or  elsewhere,  which  could  be  occupied  by  the 
men  as  police  stations,  as  occasion  might  require;"  (B.  C,  VI.,  p.  226.) 

Could  any  confession  be  more  complete?  In  1842,  if  the  assur- 
ances of  Lord  Aberdeen  and  Governor  Ijight  are  to  be  believed, 
Great  Britain  was  not  occupying  the  Barima.  In  1850  the  British 
Government  entered  into  a  solemn  engagement  with  Venezuela 
not  to  occupy  or  encroach  upon  it.  Venezuela  had  relied  upon 
the  good  faith  of  Great  Britain  to  keep  that  engagement;  yet  it 
appears  that  after  a  lapse  of  thirty-eight  years,  that  engage- 
ment sat  so  light  upon  British  officials  that  a  British  Governor 
could  say,  in  the  most  matter  of  fact  way  in  the  world,  that  ''  the 
Colonial  Government  has  exercised  jurisdiction  for  a  long  series 
of  years''''  between  the  Moruca  and  the  Amacura;  that  it  had,  of 
its  own  motion  adopted   the    Schomburgk  line  as    the  definite 


104  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

boundary  line  of  the  Colony;  that  that  line  had  ^'for  a  long  series 
of  years  been  taken  for  all  practical  purposes  as  the  settled  bound- 
ary of  the  Colony  ;^^  and  that  "  in  criminal  cases  jurisdiction"  had 
"  been  from  time  to  time  proved  by  showing  that  the  crime  oc- 
cured  at  a  place  on  the  British  side  of  that  boundary  line." 

Venezuela  does  not  admit  many  of  the  statements  made  by 
Governor  Irving — but  they  constitute  a  complete  estoppel  against 
Great  Britain  to  allege  that  Venezuela  had  by  the  acts  complained 
of  violated  the  Agreement  of  1850;  and  in  vievs^  of  his  statements, 
it  may  well  be  asked,  what  had  become  of  the  Agreement  of  1850? 
Had  not  Venezuela  claimed  the  Barima-Waini  region  in  1850? 
Had  not  Great  Britain  solemnly  bound  herself  to  respect  that 
claim,  and  not  to  "occupy  or  encroach  upon"  that  region?  Yet 
here  is  the  British  Governor  reciting  what  he  had  been  doing 
there  for  years  past  in  violation  of  that  Agreement;  and  then  pro- 
posing to  send  an  armed  force  and  to  erect  posts  and  buildings  there 
—and  for  what?  To  keep  out  a  number  of  private  individuals  who, 
without  any  authority  from  Venezuela,  he  alleges  threatened  to  go 
there,  and  who  were  acting  under  a  concesssion  which  the  British 
Governor  himself  declared  ^^  does  not  .  .  .  in  terms,  appear 
to  interfere  with  the  rights  of  the  Colony. ^^ 

In  other  words,  the  British  Governor  gives  his  testimony,  on 
the  one  hand,  to  the  fact  that  the  Venezuelan  Government  had 
not  passed  the  Schomburgk  line;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  alleges  the 
further  fact  that  for  years  past  his  own  Government  had,  in  viola- 
tion of  that  Agreement,  been  occupying  the  whole  of  the  disputed 
territory  up  to  the  very  line  which,  in  1850,  had  marked  the  limits 
of  Great  Britain's  extreme  claim.  Having  stated  these  facts,  the 
British  Governor  then  proposes  to  strengthen  the  British  hold 
upon  that  territory  by  sending  an  armed  force  into  it  and  erecting 
police  stations  at  the  mouths  of  the  Amacura,  Barima  and  Waini 
Rivers. 

Had  the  threatened  action  of  the  Manoa  Company,  which 
the  British  Governor  feared,  been  invested  with  an  official  charac- 


^ 


DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE.  105 

ter;  had  it,  in  fact,  constituted  a  violation  by  Venezuela  of  the 
Agreement  of  1850;  and  had  Great  Britain,  up  to  that  time,  faith- 
fully observed  that  agreement  herself,  she  would  have  been  within 
Iier  rights  had  she  denounced  that  Agreement  as  no  longer  binding 
upon  her.  But  the  action  of  the  Manoa  Company  was  not  the 
action  of  the  Venezuelan  Government;  the  posting  up  of  the 
notices  on  the  Amacura  and  the  Barima  was  not  an  occupation  of 
the  disputed  territory;  Great  Britain  had  herself  been  for  years 
systematically  violating  the  Agreement  of  1850;  and  she  not  only 
failed  now  to  denounce  that  Agreement,  but  continued  for  years 
thereafter  to  invoke  it  and  to  appeal  to  it  as  still  in  force. 

While  on  the  subject  of  this  Agreement,  it  may  be  well  to 
follow  to  the  end  the  events  which  further  determine  its  place  in 
the  present  controversy. 

What  immediately  followed  was  in  line  with  Sir  Henry  Irv- 
ing's  recommendations.  Mr.  McTurk  was  sent  to  take  forcible 
possession  of  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco;  and  in  1885  the  Barima- 
Waini  region  was  organized  into  a  separate  British  "district" 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  a  special  commissioner  (V.  C,  vol.  i,  p.  186). 

It  might  be  inferred  from  this  that  Great  Britain  proposed  to 
treat  the  Agreement  of  1850  as  no  longer  in  force.  Certainly, 
after  Sir  Henry  Irving's  confessions  in  1884,  after  the  formal  and 
forcible  occupation  of  the  Barima  by  Mr.  McTurk  a  few  months 
later,  and  after  the  erection  of  the  Barima-Waini  region  into  a 
British  "  district  "  in  1885,  Great  Britain  was  hardly  in  a  position 
to  appeal  to  the  Agreement  of  1850  as  against  Venezuela;  yet, 
strange  to  say,  this  is  precisely  what  she  did.  It  was  in  Decem- 
ber of  1886  that  the  Venezuelan  Government,  having  just  learned 
of  the  British  encroachments  upon  the  Barima  and  upon  the 
Amacura,  determined  to  erect  a  lighthouse  at  Barima  Point.  Mr. 
St.  John,  the  then  British  Minister  at  Caracas,  gives  a  most  in- 
structive account  of  what  took  place:  and  the  resulting  corre- 
spondence between  himself  and  the  Earl  of  Iddesleigh  throws 
much  light  upon  the  British  attitude  at  that  time. 


106  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

According  to  his  own  account  (B.  C,  VII.,  p.  117),  Mr. 
St.  John,  pursuant  to  request,  called  upon  President  Guzman 
Blanco,  on  December  6th,  1886,  and  was  informed  by  the  President 
that  the  Venezuelan  Government  proposed  to  erect  a  lighthouse 
at  Barinia  Point.  While  the  President  explained  that  such  action 
would  be  but  to  comply  with  the  "  alleged  desire  of  "  Her  Majesty's 
Government  in  1836,  yet  it  is  clear  that  the  real  reason  which 
moved  him  was  the  then  recent  action  of  the  British  at  Barima. 
The  President  informed  Mr.  St.  John  of  "  news  of  the  very 
gravest  kind  "  which  had  reached  him,  namely,  that  "  Her 
Majesty's  Government"  had  ''formally  taken  possession  of  the 
disputed  Guiana  territory  by  establishing  British  functionaries 
upon  it  in  violation  of  all  previous  understanding  and  arrange- 
ment." The  answer  of  Mr.  St.  John  was  most  significant.  Not  for 
one  moment  did  he  deny  the  existence  of  the  "  previous  understand- 
ing and  arrangement,"  referred  to  by  President  Guzman  Blanco; 
neither  did  he  allege  any  violation  of  that  Agreement  by  Vene- 
zuela; neither  did  he  attempt  the  slightest  justification  of  the  acts 
attributed  to  the  British  authorities;  his  only  answer  was  that  the 
rumor  "  was  probably  untrue."  Certainly  this  was  an  admission 
that,  if  true,  Venezuela's  complaint  was  well  founded;  and  that, 
if  true,  Great  Britain  had  violated  her  engagements. 

Having  attempted  in  this  way  to  meet  President  Blanco's 
charge,  the  British  Minister  next  proceeded  to  protest  against 
the  proposed  erection  of  a  Venezuelan  lighthouse  at  Barima 
Point,  on  the  ground  that  "the  erection  of  a  lighthouse  would 
8till  constitute  a  violation  of  disputed  ground"  (B.  C,  VII, 
p.  117).  Here,  then,  we  find  the  British  Government  at  the 
very  moment  when,  in  violation  of  the  Agreement  of  1850, 
it  was  itself  in  full  possession  of  the  Barima-Waini  region,  in- 
voking that  Agreement  against  Venezuela.  Was  not  this  an 
admission  that  Venezuela  had  kept  the  Agreement  up  to  that 
time?  Or,  if  not  this,  was  it  not  at  least  an  admission  that  if 
there  had  been  a  previous  violation  on  the  part  of  Venezuela, 


DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE.  107 

Great  Britain  elected  to  stand  by  the  Agreement  and  to  hold  it  as 
still  binding  upon  both  Governments?  Mr.  St.  John's  action, 
which  was  reported  to  and  approved  by  the  Home  Government, 
whatever  other  significance  it  may  have  had,  certainly  had  this: 
It  overlooked  the  acts  of  the  Manoa  Company,  and  all  other  pre- 
vious acts  which  might  be  claimed  to  have  been  in  violation  of 
the  Agreement  of  1850;  and  it  continued  the  life  of  that  Agree- 
ment, notwithstanding  such  acts.  If  this  be  so,  the  British 
occupation  of  Barima  at  that  time,  an  occupation  of  which 
Mr.  St.  John  was  evidently  ignorant,  forever  barred  Great  Britain 
from  justifying  her  own  violations  of  the  Agreement  of  1850  by 
alleging  previous  violations  by  Venezuela. 

That  there  may  be  no  question  as  to  the  formal  approval  of 
Mr.  St.  John's  action,  and  of  the  formal  appeal  made  by  Great 
Britain  as  late  as  1887  to  the  Agreement  of  1850  as  an  Agreement 
still  in  force,  we  quote  Lord  Iddesleigh's  note  in  answer  to  Mr.  St. 
John.  That  answer  was  dated  January  12th,  1887,  and  contained 
the  following  words: 

**  You  will  inform  President  Bianco    .     .     .     that  an  attempt  to  erect 

such  a  lighthouse  without  the  consent  of  Her  Majesty's  Government  would 

be  a  departure  from  the  reciprocal  engagement  taken  by  the  Governments 

of  Venezuela  and  England  in  1850  not  to  occupy  or  encroach  upon  the 

Jerritory  in  dispute  between  the  two  countries;"  (B.  C,  VII,  p.  118.) 


In  view  of  this  appeal,  in  January,  1887,  to  the  "reciprocal 
engagement"  of  1850,  and  in  view  of  the  opposition  made  to  the 
erection  of  a  lighthouse  by  Venezuela  as  an  act  which  would  have 
been  in  violation  of  that  Agreement,  it  is  interesting  to  note, 
among  others,  the  following  passages: 
1^  From  letter  of  Francis  Stephen  Neames,  British  Rural  Con- 
stable, to  Jesus  Manuel  Tebar  and  Santiago  Rodil,  dated  December 
24th,  1886: 

"  The  Undersigned  have  received  the  official  note,  dated  the  24th  Decem- 
ber, 1886,  requesting  to  answer  you  about  our  appointments  by  the  English 
Government  of  Georgetown,  Demerara,  and  we  have  the  honour  to  tell  you 


108  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

that,  ill  reality,  we  have  been  appointed  by  Mr.  Michael  McTurJc,  one  of 
her  Majesty's  Stipendiary  Magistrates  in  and  for  the  Colony  of  British 
Guiana,  to  be  a  Rural  Constable  in  British  Guiana,  as  you  have  seen  it  in 
the  precept  signed  by  said  Michael  McTurk  which  we  have  handed  to  you. 
We  also  inform  you  that  the  Undersigned  Francis  Stephen iVeames  has  been 
acting  Rural  Constable  since  the  1st  March,  1885,  and  the  Undersigned 
George  Benjamin  Jeffrey  has  been  appointed  and  acting  as  Constable  since 
the  (Uh  September,  1880,  both  as  Constables  in  Amacura  River. 

"  We  have  not  received  instructions  to  interfere  with  the  Venezuelan 
authorities  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Amacura  River,  but  we  have  instruc- 
tions to  prevent  any  foreign  vessel  from  selling  rum  and  other  spirituous 
liquors  on  the  English  territories,  in  which  case  any  vessel  selling  rum 
without  a  proper  licence  given  by  our  government  may  be  seized  at  any  time." 
(V.  C,  vol.  iii,  pp.  252-253.) 

From  letter  of  Senor  Urbaneja  to  Mr.  St.  John,  dated  Jan- 
uary 26,  188Y: 

"  The  Head  of  the  Commission  has  just  returned  here,  and  has  in- 
formed the  Government  of  its  result. 

"  Unfortunately,  the  grave  reports  which  caused  that  step  are  confirmed. 

"Firstly,  the  Commission  found  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  right 
bank  of  the  River  Amacura  two  Commissaries,  Messrs.  Francis  Stephen 
Neame  and  J.  B.  Jeffry. 

********* 

"  In  the  said  village  of  Amacura  the  Commision  took  declarations  on 
oath  from  the  Venezuelan  Commissary,  Mr.  Robert  Wells,  and  Messrs. 
Aniceto  Ramunez  and  Alfonso  Figueredo. 

"  Their  depositions  .  .  .  established  the  fact  of  the  existence  of 
a  wooden  house  with  a  tiled  roof,  which  serves  as  a  public  office,  flies  the 
British  flag,  was  built  by  order  and  at  the  expense  of  the  Colonial  Govern- 
ment, and  was  seen  by  the  Commisioners.  It  was  in  the  same  manner  also 
proved  that  an  English  revenue-cutter,  named 'Transfer,' had  on  various 
occasions  made  voyages  to  the  Amaciira,  conveying  the  British  Magistrate 
and  armed  police  functionaries,  with  the  object  of  inquiring  into,  judging, 
and  deciding  criminal  and  police  cases;  and  that  vesssls  legally  dispatched 
from  Ciudad  Bolivar  are  registered  in  Amacura  as  well  as  in  Barima,  and 
are  prohibited  from  selling  their  goods  and  continuing  their  course  on  the 
Barima  unless  in  ballast,  requiring  them,  in  order  to  trade,  that  they  obtain^ 
permission  in  Georgetown."    (V.  C,  vol.  iii,  pp.  256-250.)  J 


DIPLOMATIC  CORKESPONDENCE.  1G9 

Were  these  formal  British  acts— the  exclusive  jurisdiction 
established,  the  erection  at  Airiacura  of  a  "  wooden  house  with  a 
tiled  roof  which  serves  as  a  public  office,  flies  the  British  flag, 
was  built  by  order  and  at  the  expense  of  the  Colonial  Govern- 
ment," any  less  "  a  departure  from  the  reciprocal  engagement 
taken  by  the  Governments  of  Venezuela  and  England  in  1850, 
not  to  occupy  or  encroach  upon  the  territory  in  dispute  between 
the  two  countries,"  than  would  have  been  "  the  erection  of  a 
lighthouse  without  the  consent  of  Her  Majesty's  Government " 
at  Barima?  If  so  that  "  engagement  "  could  hardly  have  been 
"  reciprocal." 

We  have  said  that  Mr.  St,  John's  action  was  reported 
to  and  approved  by  the  Home  Government.  In  this  connection 
there  is  a  circumstance  which  is  not  calculated  to  inspire  con- 
fidence in  the  sincerity  of  the  British  authorities  at  that  time. 
Mr.  St.  John  had  stated  to  President  Blanco  that  "  in  order  to 
prevent  the  disputed  territory  from  becoming  an  asylum  for 
criminals,  these  had  often  been  pui^sued  by  British  police,  and 
could  be  similarly  pursued  by  Venezuelan  police  when  escaping 
from  the  other  side"  (B.  C,  VII.,  p.  118).  This  statement  of 
Ml'.  St.  John,  so  far  as  regards  the  pursuit  of  criminals  by  Venez- 
uelan police,  was  distinctly  disapproved  by  the  Earl  of  Iddesleigh, 
who  thus  wrote  on  January  12th,  1887: 

"  In  the  first  place  I  have  to  acquaiut  you  that  the  language  which  you 
inform  me  you  held  at  your  interview  with  General  Guzman  Blanco  lias  the 
approval  of  Her  Majesty's  Government ;  they  do  not,  hoioeoer,  ivish  yuu  to 
say  anything  further  concerning  the  pursuit  of  fugitives  itito  the  disputed 
territory  by  the  Venezuelan  police,  an  if  is  not  desirable  to  encourage  the 
Venezuelan  Government  to  adopt  such  action.^*    (B.  C,  VII.,  p.  118.) 

Are  we  to  understand  from  this  that  Great  Britain,  while 
claiming  for  herself,  under  the  Agreement  of  1850,  the  right  to 
pursue  fugitives  from  justice  into  the  disputed  territory,  denied 
that  right  to  Venezuela?  If  not,  then  only  one  of  two  interpreta- 
tions can  be  placed  upon  the  words  of  the  noble  Earl.     Either  both 


110  DIPLOMATIC   C0HRE8P0NDBNCB. 

nations  had  the  right  to  make  the  pursuit,  in  which  case  it  appears 
that  Her  Majesty's  Governiuent  proposed  to  "discourage"  Vene- 
zuela, that  is,  to  prevent  Venezuela  from  doing  what  she  had  a 
right  to  do;  or  else  neither  nation  had  the  right,  in  which  case, 
since  Lord  Iddesleigh  approved  of  what  Mr.  St.  John  had  said 
relating  to  British  police,  it  appeai-s  that  Her  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment proposed  to  do  and  continued  to  do  things  which  were  in 
violation  of  this  treaty  engagement.  There  seems  to  be  little 
choice  between  the  horns  of  this  dilemma.  Either  one  places  the 
British  Government  of  that  time  in  a  very  unenviable  light. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  up  to  this  time  no  violation  of  the 
Agreement  of  1850'  by  Venezuela  had  been  even  alleged.  The 
sending  of  Mr.  McTurk  to  th3  Barima,  in  1884,  and  the  erection  of 
the  Barima- Waini  region,  in  1885,  into  a  separate  "district," 
were  in  consequence  of  the  acts  of  a  private  Company,  acting 
under  a  charter  which  Sir  Henry  Irving  himself  declared  at  the 
time,  ^^  does  not,  therefore,  in  terms,  appear  to  interfere  with  the 
rights  of  the  Colony''  (B.  C,  VI,  p.  225).  It  was  not 
until  three  years  later,  when  diplomatic  relations  between  the 
two  countries  had,  in  consequence  of  British  encroachments  upon 
the  disputed  territory,  been  suspended,  that  Great  Britain's  action 
in  that  regard  was  sought  to  be  justified  by  alleged  prior  viola- 
tions by  Venezuela  of  the  Agreement  of  J  850.  It  was  then  that 
the  action  of  the  Manoa  Company  was  for  the  first  time  laid  at 
the  door  of  the  Venezuelan  Government,  and  that  that  Govern- 
ment was  charged  with  other  acts  of  alleged  "occupation  and 
encroachment." 

It  was  on  March  7th,  188/,  that  Lord  Salisbury  thus  wrote  to 
Mr.  St.  John: 

"Tlie  Venezuelan  Government,  in  their  note,  also  charge  Her  Ma- 
jesty's Government  with  a  breach  of  the  reciprocal  engagement  of  1850. 

"  You  are  already  aware,  from  General  Guzman  Blanco's  note  to  the 
Earl  of  Rosobery  of  the  28th  July,  1886,  a  copy  of  which  was  forwarded 
to  you  in  the  Earl  of  Iddesleigh's  despatch  of  the  25th   August  last,  that. 


DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE.  Ill 

although  his  Excellency  complained  of  the  action  of  the  British  Colonial 
authorities  at  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco  River  in  October  1884,  and  de- 
clared it  to  be  a  violation  of  the  Agreement  of  1850,  no  allusion  whatever 
was  made  to  the  fact  that  on  repeated  occasions  long  prior  to  that  date  the 
Venezuelan  Government  had  violated  that  engagement  by  granting  conces- 
sions of  land  in  the  disputed  territory  for  mining  and  other  purposes. 

"I  refer  especially  to  the  concessions  made  on  the  12th  May,  1881, 
on  the  22nd  September,  1883,  and  on  the  20th  March,  1884,  at  the 
very  time  when  proposals  made  by  the  British  Government  for  the  settle- 
ment of  this  long-disputed  boundary  question  were  said  to  be  actually 
under  consideration  by  the  Venezuelan  Government. 

"Her  Majesty's  Government,  therefore,  consider  that  they  were  fully 
justified  in  issuing  the  Notice  which  appeared  in  the  'London  Gazette'  of 
the  22nd  October,  1886,  and  in  taking  such  other  precautions  as  seemed 
to  be  necessary  to  safeguard  the  rights  of  Great  Britain."  (B.  C,  VII,  p. 
133.) 

Six  years  later,  when  negotiations  were  proceeding  in  London 
with  a  view  to  re-establishing  diplomatic  relations,  Lord  Rosebery 
thus  wrote  to  Senor  Michelena: 

"  With  regard  to  clause  4  of  the  pro  memorid,  in  which  it  is  proposed 
that  both  Her  Majesty's  Government  and  that  of  Venezuela  shall  acknowl- 
edge and  declare  that  the  status  quo  of  the  boundary  question  is  that  which 
existed  in  1850,  Her  Majesty's  Government  consider  that  it  is  quite  impos- 
sible that  they  should  consent  to  revert  to  the  status  quo  of  1850,  and 
evacuate  what  has  for  some  years  constituted  an  integral  portion  of  Brit- 
ish Guiana.  They  regret,  therefore,  that  they  cannot  entertain  this 
proposition. 

"The  Declaration  made  to  the  Venezuelan  Government  in  the  year 
1850  by  Sir  Belford  Wilson,  the  British  Charg6  d'Affaires,  was  as  follows: 
That  '  whilst  on  the  one  hand  Great  Britain  had  no  intention  to  occupy  or 
encroach  on  the  disputed  territory,  it  would  not  on  the  other  hand  view 
with  indifference  aggressions  in  that  territory  by  Venezuela.'  The  arrange- 
ment on  this  basis  was  disturbed  by  Venezuela  on  several  successive  occa- 
sions prior  to  any  attempt  on  the  part  of  Her  Majesty's  Government  to 
exercise  jurisdiction  in  the  districts  in  question.  In  the  same  year  (1850) 
in  which  the  Declaration  was  made,  the  Venezuelan  Govern  men  tiljegan  to 
establish  new  positions  to  the  east  of  Turaeremo,  and  in  1^58  they  founded 
the  town  of  Nueva  Providencia,  on  the  south  side  of  the  River  Yuruari. 
Again,  in  1876,  licences  were  granted  by  the  Government  of  Venezuela  to 


112  DIPLOJIATIC  COKKKSPONDENCE. 

trade  and  cut  wood  in  the  district  of  Barima,  and  to  the  eastward  of  that 
district.  In  1881,  the  Venezuelan  Government  made  a  grant  of  a  great  part 
of  the  disputed  territory  to  General  Pulgal,  and  in  1884  it  made  conces- 
sions to  the  Manoa  Company  and  others,  which  were  followed  by  actual 
attempts  to  settle  the  territory. 

"In  contrast  to  this  action,  the  attitude  of  the  British  Government  was 
marked  by  great  forbearance  and  a  strong  desire  to  execute  the  arrange- 
ment in  good  faith.  In  proof  of  this  disposition,  it  may  be  instanced  that 
when  applied  to  in  1881  to  grant  a  Concession  in  the  disputed  territory  to 
certain  applicants  they  distinctly  declined  to  entertain  the  proposal,  on  the 
ground  that  negotiations  were  proceeding  with  Venezuela,  and.  it  was  not 
until  the  encroachments  of  the  Manoa  Company  began  to  interfere 
seriously  with  the  peace  and  good  order  of  the  Colony  that  Her  Majesty's 
Government  decided  that  an  effective  occupation  of  the  territory  could  no 
longer  be  deferred,  and  steps  were  taken  for  publicly  asserting  what  they 
believe  to  be  the  incontestable  rights  of  Great  Britain. 

**  Those  rights  they  are  unable  now  to  abandon,  and  they  could  not  con- 
sent that  any  status  quo  except  that  now  existing  should  remain  in  force 
during  the  progress  of  the  negotiations."    (B.  C,  VII,  p.  143.) 

Finally,  in  his  note  of  November  26,  1895,  to  Sir  Julian 
Pauncefote,  Loi'd  Salisbury,  after  referring  to  the  Declarations 
exchanged  in  1850  between  Venezuela  and  Great  Britain,  thus 
continues: 

"  This  constitutes  what  has  been  termed  the  'Agreement  of  1850,'  to 
which  the  Government  of  Venezuela  have  fre<i[ueutly  appealed,  but  which 
the  Venezuelans  have  repeatedly  violated  in  succeeding  years. 

"  Their  first  acts  of  this  nature  consisted  in  the  occupation  of  fresh 
positions  to  the  east  of  their  previous  settlements,  and  the  founding  in 
1858  of  the  town  of  Nueva  Providencia  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Yuruari, 
all  previous  settlements  being  on  the  left  bank.  The  British  Government, 
however,  considering  that  these  settlements  were  so  near  positions  whicii 
they  had  not  wished  to  claim,  considering  also  the  ditKculty  of  controlling 
the  movements  of  mining  populations,  overlooked  this  breach  of  the 
Agreement.    (V.  C.-C,  vol.  iii,  p.  279.) 

"  In  1876  it  was  reported  that  the  Venezuelan  Government  had,  for 
the  second  time,  broken  'the  Agreement  of  1850'  by  granting  licences  to 
trade  and  cut  wood  in  Barima  and  eastward,     {ib.,  pp.  279-280.) 

******** 


DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE.  113 

"  This  boundary  was  proposed  to  the  Venezuelan  Government  by  Lord 
Granville  in  September  1881,  but  no  answer  was  ever  returned  by  that 
Government  to  the  proposal. 

"  While,  however,  the  Venezuelan  Minister  constantly  stated  that  the 
matter  was  under  active  consideration,  it  was  found  that  in  the  same  year  a 
Concession  had  been  given  by  his  Government  to  General  Pulgar,  which 
included  a  large  portion  of  the  territory  in  dispute.  This  was  the  third 
breach  by  Venezuela  of  the  Agreement  of  1850. 

"  Early  in  1884,  news  arrived  of  a  fourth  breach  by  Venezuela  of  the 
Agreement  of  1850,  through  two  different  grants  which  covered  the  whole 
of  the  territory  in  dispute,  and  as  this  was  followed  by  actual  attempts  to 
settle  on  the  disputed  territory,  the  British  Government  could  no  longer 
remain  inactive."    {ib.,  p.  281.) 

It  will  be  noticed,  in  the  first  place,  that  these  statements  of 
Lord  Salisbury  and  Loi'd  Rosebery  regarding  alleged  violations  of 
the  Agreement  of  1850  by  Venezuela  referred  to  acts,  or  supposed 
acts,  which  took  place  prior  to  December,  1886,  when,  as  we 
have  seen,  Mr.  St.  John,  on  behalf  of  Great  Britain,  and  with 
a  full  knowledge  of  these  facts,  invoked  that  Agreement  as  still 
in  force.  Whether  or  not  these  allegations  had  any  foundation 
in  fact,  Great  Britain,  by  appealing  to  that  Agreement,  as  it  did 
in  1886,  elected  to  disregard  them,  and  to  hold  by  the  Agreement 
itself  as  still  binding.  That  a  failure  to  denounce  the  Agreement, 
after  receiving  information  of  its  violation  by  the  other  party, 
constituted  an  election  to  regard  the  Agreement  as  still  binding, 
is  asserted  by  Lord  Salisbury  himself,  who,  in  the  passages  above 
quoted,  referring  to  what  he  calls  the  first  case  of  violation  by 
Venezuela  in  1858,   says:     "The   British   Government,  however, 

.  .  overlooked  this  breach  of  the  Agreement"  (V.  C.-C, 
rol.  iii,  p.  279).  That  is  to  say,  a  breach  may  be  overlooked  by 
the  innocent  party,  if  he  so  wishes,  and,  in  case  of  such  election, 
the  original  Agreement  continues  in  force.  It  follows  as  a  matter 
of  course  that  if  the  breach  be  overlooked  and  if  the  Agreement 
be  regarded  thereafter  as  still  in  force,  the  overlooking  constitutes 
a.  waiver  oi  the  breach,  and  that,  consequently,  the  breach  so 
waived  cannot  thereafter  be  alleged  to  justify  another  breach  by 


114  DIPIX>MATIC    CORRBSPONDENCE. 

the  party  who  elected  to  waive  the  first  one.  Such  being  the  law, 
it  follows  that  when,  in  December  of  1886,  Great  Britain  invoked 
the  Agreement  of  1850  as  still  binding,  and  when  she  based 
upon  it  her  objection  to  the  erection  of  a  Venezuelan  lighthouse 
at  Barima  Point,  she  thereby  overlooked  all  those  violations  al- 
leged by  Lord  Rosebery  and  Lord  Salisbury,  and  having  thus 
waived  them  could  not  thereafter,  and  cannot  now,  use  them  to 
justify  violations  of  her  own. 

But,  however  sound  this  position  may  be  in  point  of  law, 
Venezuela  has  no  need  to  rest  upon  it.  As  a  matter  of  fact  she 
has  never— not  even  to  this  day— violated  the  Agreement  of  1850. 

Let  it  be  remembered  that  that  Agreement  had  reference  to 
territory  in  dispute -not  now  — but  in  1850.  At  that  time  the 
present  Schoraburgk  line,  according  to  Lord  Aberdeen,  marked  the 
extreme  British  claim.  About  the  territory  to  the  west  of  it  there 
was  no  dispute  whatever.  Tumeremo,  to  which  Lord  Rosebery 
referred,  was,  according  to  the  British  Atlas  (map  4)  eighty-five 
miles  due  west  of  that  line,  and  had  been  founded  as  early  as 
1788.  Nueva  Providencia,  to  which  Lord  Rosebery  and  Lord 
Salisbury  both  referred,  was,  according  to  another  British  map 
(Blue- Book,  V.  p.  1,  1896)  fifteen  miles  west  of  Tumeremo,  that  is 
to  say,  one  hundred  miles  west  of  the  territory  which  was  in  dis- 
pute in  1850.  The  grants  to  Pulgar,  Fitzgerald  and  Gordon,  as 
already  explained,  and  as  Sir  Henry  Irving  at  the  time  stated,  did 
not  interfere  with  the  rights  of  the  Colony;  and  the  Venezuelan 
Government  was  certainly  less  responsible  for  the  unauthorized 
acts  of  these  concessionees  than  Great  Britain  herself  had  been  for 
the  acts  of  the  British  raining  company  which  was  organized  in 
Georgetown  in  1863,  and  which,  from  1863  to  186Y,  continued  to 
work  mines  in  the  disputed  territory  with  the  knowledge  and 
without  the  interference  of  the  British  authorities.  Even  after 
four  years'  existence  the  British  Government  did  nothing  to  pre- 
vent those  mining  operations;  it  merely  refused  to  sanction  them, 
or  to  extend  its  support  to  the  Company.     If  that  was  a  good  rule 


DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE.  115 

to  apply  in  1867  to  Great  Britain,  who  for  four  years  had  allowed 
a  British  company  to  mine  in  the  disputed  territory,  why  is  it  not 
a  good  rule  to  apply  to  Venezuela  in  1884  with  regard  to  an  insig- 
nificant, unmeaning  and  unauthorized  act  of  an  agent  of  a  Vene- 
zuelan company? 

The  only  other  Venezuelan  "  encroachment "  referred  to  by 
Lord  Rosebery  and  Lord  Salisbury,  is  that  of  certain  licenses 
alleged  to  have  been  issued  in  1876  "to  trade  and  cut  wood  in 
Barima  and  eastward."  What  these  licences  may  have  been 
nowhere  appears,  for  there  is  no  evidence  regarding  them;  and, 
as  the  British  Case  makes  no  mention  of  them,  it  is  to  be  presumed 
that  later  investigation  has  satisfied  the  compilers  of  the  British 
Case  that  no  such  licenses  were  issued. 

To  sura  up,  then,  the  various  alleged  Venezuelan  violations 
relied  upon  by  Lord  Eosebery  and  Lord  Salisbury  amount  to  this: 
that  Venezuelan  settlements  were  made  in  Venezuelan  territory 
at  a  distance  of  eighty-five  and  one  hundred  miles,  respectively, 
west  of  the  disputed  territory,  one  in  the  year  1788  and  the  other 
in  the  year  1858;  and  that  in  1881,  1883  and  1881  three  grants 
were  made  by  Venezuela  relating  to  lands  west  of  the  British 
boundary,  which  did  not,  according  to  the  statement  of  the  then 
British  Governor  "in  terms  appear  to  interfere  with  the  rights  of 
the  Colony." 

As  against  these,  we  have,  on  the  British  side,  this:  for  years, 
prior  to  1884,  according  to  Sir  Henry  Irving,  the  British  treated 
their  extreme  claim  of  1850  as  the  actual  boundary  of  the  Colony; 
they  exercised  jurisdiction  there;  in  1884,  they  took  forcible  pos- 
session of  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco;  in  1885,  the  Barima- Waini 
region  was  organized  into  a  separate  British  district;  buildings 
were  erected  there  under  the  protection  of  the  British  flag;  and 
to-day,  against  Venezuelan  protests,  Great  Britain  is  holding  by 
force  the  territory  which  she  agreed  in  1850  to  neither  occupy 
nor  encroach  upon. 

It  is  a  familiar  rule  of  law  that  rights  are  not  acquired  by 


h 


116  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

repeating  wrongs.  British  occupation,  against  Venezuelan  pro- 
test and  in  violation  of  British  Agreement,  cannot  be  made  the 
basis  of  British  title. 

The  armed  invasion  of  the  disputed  territory  by  Great  Britain 
in  violation  of  her  Agreement  of  1850,  and  her  refusal  to  evacuate 
it,  were  the  immediate  cause  of  the  suspension  of  diplomatic 
relations  in  February  of  1887.  Let  us  now  take  up  the  diplomatic 
correspondence  which  followed  that  suspension. 

In  January,  1890,  some  three  years  after  the  suspension  of 
diplomatic  relations,  Venezuela  attempted  to  reopen  the  discussion 
of  the  boundary  question  with  Great  Britain.  She  was  induced  to 
this  action  by  certain  representations  made  to  her  Minister  in 
Paris  by  Sir  Andrew  Clarke  and  Captain  Lowther,  persons  whor 
the  Venezuelan  Government  then  believed  were  acting  with 
authority  from  the  British  Government.  Clarke  and  Lowthei 
represented  to  Venezuela  that  Great  Britain  was  prepared  "  tc 
evacuate  the  invaded  territory,  and  to  submit  the  case  to  the  arbi- 
tration of  a  friendly  Power,  provided  Venezuela  would  declare 
diplomatic  relations  to  be  re  established  between  the  two  coun 
tries"  (V.  C,  vol.  iii,  p.  276). 

The  action  of  Sir  Andrew  Clarke  and  Captain  Lowther  wai 
subsequently  disavowed  by  the  British  Government,  but  it  w, 
due  to  the  representations  made  by  them  that  in  January,  1890, 
Senor  Urbaneja  addressed  himself  to  the  Marquess  of  Salisbury. 
These  advances  by  Venezuela  were  met  by  Great  Britain  with  the 
following  statement: 

"  As  regards  the  frontier  between  Venezuela  and  the  Colony  of  British 
Guiana,  Her  Mnjesty's  Government  could  not  accept  as  satisfactory 
any  arrangement  which  did  not  admit  the  British  title  to  the  territory 
comprised  within  the  line  laid  down  by  Sir  R.  Schomburgk  in  1841. 
They  would  be  ready  to  refer  to  arbitration  the  claim  of  Great  Britain  to 
certain  territories  to  the  west  of  that  line  "  (V.  C,  vol.  iii,  p.  274). 

That  a  British  Minister  could,  in  1890,  make  such  a  proposition 
shows  the  great  expansion  of  the  British  claim  since  the  days  of 


DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE.  117 

Lord  Aberdeen,  and  proves  the  completeness  with  which  Great 
Britain  had  made  herself  mistress  of  territory,  which,  in 
1850,  she  had  solemnly  pledged  herself  neither  to  occupy  nor 
encroach  upon.  In  1844  the  British  premier  put  forward  the 
Schomburgk  line  as  Great  Britain's  extreme  claim,  thereby  admit- 
ting that  the  territory  to  the  west  belonged  to  Venezuela. 
Forty-six  years  later  (1890)  another  British  premier  refused  to 
discuss  the  title  to  that  territory  which,  in  1844,  his  predecessor 
had  admitted  to  be  doubtful;  but  expressed  his  willingness 
to  submit  to  arbitration  the  title  to  territory  which  had  not 
been  in  dispute  in  1844,  and  which  Lord  Aberdeen  had,  at  that 
time,  admitted  to  belong  to  Venezuela.  Could  such  a  proposition 
be  other  than  offensive  to  any  self-respecting  power?  Venezuela 
declined  the  offer  and  these  preliminary  negotiations  came  to 
an  end. 

While  these  negotiations  were  without  results,  some  of  the 
correspondence  merits  attention. 

A  Memorandum  from  the  British  Foreign  Office,  dated  Feb- 
ruary 13,  1890,  affirmed  the  position  taken  by  the  British  Pro- 
memorid  of  February  10,  1890,  and  contained,  among  other 
jhings,  the  following  statements: 

"  The  claim  of  Great  Britain,  oa  the  other  hand,  to  the  whole  basin  of 
the  Cuyuni  and  Yuruari  is  shown  to  be  solidly  founded,  and  the  greater  part 
of  the  district  has  been  for  three  centuries  under  continuous  settlement  by 
the  Dutch  and  by  the  British  as  their  successors.^'  (V.  0.,  vol.  iii,  p. 
277). 

This  statement  is  made  with  reference  to  the  region  in  which 
most  of  the  Spanish  Capuchin  missions  had  been  established, 
and  of  which,  therefore,  Spain  and  its  successor,  Venezuela, 
aad  been  in  exclusive  possession  for  at  least  one  hundred 
iind  fifty-six  years  prior  to  1880.  It  was  the  region  from  which 
the  Dutch  were  expelled  by  the  Spanish  in  1Y58,  when  the 
'ormer  attempted  to  put  up  a  trading  post  on  the  lower 
i^uyuni;  it  was  the  region  which,  as  regards  the  part  west  of 


, 


118  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

the  Cuyuni  proper,  Lord  Aberdeen  had,  in  1844,  admitted  to  be 
indisputably  Venezuelan;  and  it  was  the  region  which,  having 
been  entered  by  British  adventurers  for  the  first  time  in  1863, 
was  in  1867  declared  by  the  British  Government  to  be  beyond  the 
limits  where  British  subjects  could  look  to  it  for  protection.  Quite 
apart,  however,  from  these  facts,  which  alone  suffice  to  disprove 
the  above  quoted  declaration  of  the  British  Foreign  Office,  it  is 
important  to  note  that  here  again,  as  late  as  February,  1890, 
Great  Britain  still  rested  her  title  to  the  interior  upon  supposed 
Dutch  settlements,  and  upon  her  succession  to  Dutch  rights  in 
that  quarter. 

This  continued  reliance  by  Great  Britain  upon  former  Dutch 
rights  is  even  more  clearly  shown  in  the  following  passage,  taken 
from  a  later  British  Memorandum,  dated  July  24th,  1890: 

"  That  territory,  and  by  far  the  greater  portion  of  the  large  tract  ol 
country  which  the  Venezuelan  Government  seeks  to  put  in  question, 
accrued  to  the  Netherlands  under  the  Treaty  of  Munster  of  164S  by  right 
of  previous  occupation.  It  was  constantly  held  and  claimed  by  the  States- 
General  in  succeeding  years.  It  was  publicly  and  effectively  occupied  by 
Great  Britain  during  the  wars  at  the  close  of  the  last  century,  and  the  for- 
mal transfer  of  the  country  so  occupied  was  effected  by  the  Treaty  of  Peace 
with  the  Netherlands  of  the  13th  August,  1814,  and  was  in  no  way  ques-< 
tioned  by  Spain  on  the  conclusion  of  peace  with  her  in  the  same  year."  (V. 
0.,  vol.  iii,  p.  283). 

The  Memorandum  from  which  this  passage  is  taken  con- 
tains another  important  statement.  The  Venezuelan  Case  re- 
gards the  Barima  as  a  part  of  the  Orinoco  system,  and  treats 
Point  Barima  as  Orinoco  territory  (V.  C,  vol.  i,  p.  14).  The 
British  Case  (p.  8),  on  the  other  hand  and  also  the  British 
Counter-Case  (p.  6)  attempt  to  deal  with  the  Barima  as  though 
it  were  something  separate  from  the  Orinoco,  and  treat  theJ 
Barima- Waini  region,  including  Barima  Point,  as  a  basin  by 
itself  (British  Atlas,  map  3).  The  British  Memorandum  of  July 
24th,  1890,  to  which  we  have  referred,  was  a  reply  to  a  propo| 


I 


DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  119 

sition  submitted  by  Senor  Pulido.     Pulido's  memorandum  was  in 
part  as  follows: 

"The  Government  of  the  United  States  of  Venezuela  should  formally 
declare  that  the  Kiver  Essequibo,  its  banks,  and  the  lands  covering  it  be- 
long exclusively  to  British  Guiana,  and  Her  Majesty's  Government  should 
formally  declare  that  the  Orinoco  River,  its  banks,  and  the  lands  covering 
it  belong  exclusively  to  the  United  States  of  Venezuela."  (V.  C. ,  vol.  iii, 
p.  280.) 

The  British  answer  to  this  was  as  follows: 

"The proposed  Declaration,  if  it  be  correctly  understood,  would  recog- 
nize the  right  of  Great  Britain  to  the  main  stream  only  of  the  Essequibo  and 
the  land  immediately  upon  its  banks,  without  including  its  tributaries,  in 
exchange  for  a  similar  recognition  of  the  right  of  V^enezuela  to  the  main 
stream  of  the  Orinoco,  and  the  land  upon  its  banks  and  in  the  neighbour- 
hood of  its  mouth,  including  Point  Barima  and  the  adjacent  district,  ..." 
(V.  C,  vol.  iii,  p.  283.) 

This  definition  by  the  British  Foreign  Office  of  what  was 
included  under  the  term  "  Orinoco  River,  its  banks,  and  the 
lands  covering  it,"  formulated  at  a  time  when  British  interests 
were  apparently  not  menaced  by  such  definition,  is  obviously 
entitled  to  greater  weight  than  the  subsequent  allegations  of  the 
British  Case  and  Counter-Case  contradicting  it. 

These  preliminary  negotiations  of  1890,  as  already  stated, 
ended  without  accomplishing  anything.  Another  and  final  at- 
tempt was  made  by  Venezuela  three  years  later,  through  Senor 
Michelena.  This  attempt  was  likewise  doomed  to  failure;  but 
certain  statements  made  in  the  course  of  the  correspondence 
merit  attention. 

On  May  26,  1893,  Senor  Michelena  submitted  to  the  Earl  of 
Rosebery  a  Pro-memoria  containing  certain  proposed  bases  for  the 
settlement  of  the  boundary  question.  The  first  of  these  bases 
began  thus: 

"  The  Government  of  Great  Britain  claims  certain  territory  in  Guiana, 
as  successor  in  title  of  the  Netherlands,  and  the  Government  of  Venezuela 
claims  the  same  territory  as  being  the  heir  of  Spain  ";  (V.  C,  vol.  iii,  pp. 
286-287). 


120  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

These  had  up  to  that  time  been  the  acknowledged  bases  upon 
which  both  titles  rested:  Great  Britain  had  never  claimed  any 
other  source  of  title.  This  formal  statement  presented  by  Vene- 
zuela, as  a  mere  preamble  to  a  proposition  for  the  settlement  of 
the  boundary  dispute,  was  returned  by  Lord  Rosebery,  amended 
as  follows: 

"  [Whereas]  The  Government  of  Great  Britain  claims  certain  territory 
in  Guayana  as  successor  in  title  of  the  Netherlands  and  [by  right  of  con- 
quest as  against  Spain,  and  whereas]  the  Government  of  Venezuela  claims 
the  same  territory  as  being  the  heir  of  Spain;  .  .  .  "  (V.  C,  vol.  iii, 
p.  289). 

The  modifications  thus  introduced  give  to  this  preamble  an 
importance  which  it  would  not  otherwise  have.  As  modified  it 
must  be  taken  to  embody,  in  an  authoritative  manner,  all  that 
could,  at  the  time,  be  claimed  as  sources  of  British  title.  If  Great 
Britain  had,  in  1893,  relied  in  any  measure  upon  prescription,  or 
upon  the  existence  of  a  no-man's  land  between  the  original  Dutch 
and  Spanish  possessions  and  a  British  occupation  of  that  land,  or 
upon  Indian  treaties  or  Indian  relations  of  any  kind.  Lord  Rose- 
bery would  certainly  have  so  stated  in  this  preamble.  The  fact 
that  he  made  modifications  in  it,  and  that  he  added  words  which 
more  clearly  defined  the  origin  of  the  British  title,  proves  that  he 
intended  the  preamble  to  be  both  accurate  and  exhaustive  in  this 
regard.  Whatever  other  sources,  therefore,  the  British  title  may 
in  fact  have,  it  is  clear  that  no  other  was  known  to  the  British 
Government  in  1893. 

Having  noted  this  fact,  let  us  next  inquire  into  the  meaning  of 
the  words  added  by  Lord  Roseberry  to  this  preamble.  A  title  "  by 
right  of  conquest  as  against  Spain  "  can  refer  to  nothing  later  than 
1648.  The  Netherlands  certainly  acquired  no  title  by  conquest  after 
that  year.  It  has  at  times  been  contended,  and  is  now  maintained 
by  the  British  Case  that,  after  the  Treaty  of  Munster,  the  Dutch  en- 
larged their  domains;  though  it  is  at  the  same  time  asserted  that 
such  enlargement  was  the  result  of  peaceful  occupation  under  the 


DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE,  121 

terms  of  the  treaty,  not  of  conquest.  So  also  with  regard  to  Great 
Britain,  since  Lord  Rosebery  wrote  in  1893,  a  number  of  new  claims 
have  been  put  forward,  to  prove  British  rights  to  the  disputed  terri- 
tory; but  there  is  no  pretence,  so  far  as  we  are  aware,  that  Great 
Britain  ever  conquered  any  part  of  it  from  Spain— certainly  there 
could  be  no  foundation  for  such  a  claim  were  it  made.  Such  being 
the  case,  it  must  be  that  when  Lord  Eosebery  inserted  the  words 
"by  right  of  conquest  as  against  Spain,"  he  referred  to  the  title 
originally  acquired  by  the  Dutch,  for  that  title  was,  in  fact,  "a 
title  by  conquest."  If  we  are  correct  in  the  interpretation  thus 
placed  upon  Lord  Rosebery 's  words,  the  admission  is  a  most 
important  one,  for  it  recognizes  that  the  Dutch  came  to  Guiana  to 
war  against  Spain  on  Spanish  soil,  and  that  the  rights  which  they 
thus  acquired  are  to  be  measured  by  the  strict  rules  applicable  to 
such  cases. 

But  this  is  not  the  only  admission  made  by  Lord  Rosebery  in 
the  course  of  this  correspondence  of  1893. 

One  of  the  claims  of  the  British  Case  is  this: 

"  That  prior  to  1796  the  Dutch,  and,  since  that  date  the  British,  have 
been  in  possession  of  all  the  territory  now  in  dispute"  (B.  C,  pp.  18-19). 

This  claim  is  repeated  later  in  the  following  language: 

"  After  the  acquisition  of  the  Colony  by  the  British,  Great  Britain  exer- 
cised over  the  territory  now  in  dispute  all  those  rights  by  which  nations 
usually  indicate  their  claim  to  territorial  possession."    (B.  0.,  p.  120.) 

It  goes  without  saying  that  if  the  British  have  been  in  posses- 
sion of  this  territory  during  the  entire  century;  if  they  have,  in 
fact,  exercised  over  it  all  the  sovereign  rights  of  a  nation  during 
that  period;  and  if  this  possession  and  exercise  of  sovereign  ter- 
ritorial rights  are  to  serve  as  bases  of  British  title— and  such  is 
evidently  the  intention  of  these  allegations— then  that  possession 
or  occupation  must  have  been  effective — nothing  else  can  suffice; 
nothing  else  can  sustain  the  allegations  of  the  British  Case.  It  is 
precisely  here  that  Lord  Rosebery  upsets  the  British  contention; 


122  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

for,  writing  to  Senor  Michelena  on  July  3rd,  1893,  he  says,  speak- 
ing of  the  Agreement  of  1850: 

"  In  contrast  to  this  action,  the  attitude  of  the  British  Government  was 
marked  by  great  forbearance  and  a  strong  desire  to  execute  the  arrangement 
in  good  faith.  In  proof  of  this  disposition,  it  may  be  instanced  that  when 
applied  to  in  1881  to  grant  a  Concession  in  the  disputed  territory  to  certain 
applicants  they  distinctly  declined  to  entertain  the  proposal,  on  the  ground 
tiiat  negotiations  were  proceeding  with  Venezuela,  and  it  was  not  until  the 
encroachments  of  the  Manoa  Company  began  to  interfere  seriously  with  the 
peace  and  good  order  of  the  Colony  that  her  Majesty's  Government  decided 
that  an  effective  occupation  of  the  territory  could  fio  longer  he  deferred,  and 
steps  were  taken  for  publicly  asserting  what  they  believe  to  be  the  incon- 
testable rights  of  Great  Britain."    (V.  C,  vol.  iii,  pp.  iJ88-289). 

If  this  mean  anything,  it  means  that  prior  to  1884,  the  now 
alleged  British  occupation  of  the  Barima-Waini  region  and  of  the 
Cuyuni  region  had  not  been  '^  an  effective  occupation''^— s^n  occu- 
pation, that  is  to  say,  which  under  the  rules  of  international  law 
could  be  made  the  basis  of  a  title  by  occupation.  Of  course  this 
admission  by  a  British  premier  is  conclusive,  for  it  is  an  admission 
against  interest. 

With  the  failure  of  Senor  Michelena's  mission,  the  diplomatic 
correspondence  between  Great  Britain  and  Venezuela  came  to  an 
end. 

Before  closing  this  Chapter  attention  should  be  called  to  one  or 
two  passages  in  subsequent  instructions,  to  Sir  Julian  Pauncefote, 
which  show  that,  as  late  as  the  close  of  1895,  the  British  Govern- 
ment still  continued  to  rely  exclusively  upon  a  Dutch  title. 

On  February  23,  1895,  the  Earl  of  Kimberley  thus  wrote  to 
the  British  Ambassador  in  Washington : 

"  On  the  other  hand,  Great  Britain  has  throughout  been  prepared  to 
make  large  abatements  from  her  extreme  claiin,  although  Her  Majesty's 
Government  have  been  continually  accumulating  stronger  documentary 
proofs  of  the  correctness  of  that  extreme  claim  as  being  their  inheritance 
from  their  Dutch  predecessors.^'  (V.  C,  vol.  iii,  p.  260.) 


DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  123 

On  November  26,  1895,  Lord  Salisbury  thus  stated  the  origin 
of  the  British  claim: 

"  The  title  of  Great  Britain  to  the  territory  in  question  is  derived,  in  the 
first  place,  trom  conquest  and  military  occupation  of  the  Dutch  settlements 
in  179G.  Both  on  this  occasion,  and  at  the  time  of  a  previous  occupation 
of  those  settlements  in  1781,  the  British  authorities  marked  the  western 
boundary  of  their  possessions  as  beginning  some  distance  up  the  Orinoco 
beyond  Point  Barima,  in  accordance  with  the  limits  claimed  and  actually 
held  iy  the  Dutch,  and  this  has  always  since  remained  the  frontier  claimed 
hj  Great  Britain."     (V.  C.-C,  vol.  iii,  p.  275.) 

To  the  very  last,  therefore,  the  British  rested  even  their  extreme 
claim  upon  the  "inheritance  from  their  Dutch  predecessors,"  and 
asserted  a  frontier  "in  accordance  with  limits  claimed  and  actually 
held  by  the  Dutch."  These  repeated  statements  by  British 
authorities  v^^ith  regard  to  the  exclusively  Dutch  origin  of  the 
British  title  have  been  dwelt  upon  at  length  because  of  the  com- 
plete change  of  front,  in  this  regard,  presented  by  the  British 
Counter- Case  in  the  following  passages: 

"It  is  admitted  that  Great  Britain  acquired  Guiana  from  the  Dutch, 
but,  for  the  reasons  given  in  other  parts  of  this  Counter-Case,  Her  Majesty's 
Government  protest  against  the  attempt  made  in  the  Venezuelan  Case  to 
confine  the  extent  of  British  dominion  to  the  limits  of  territory  actually 
settled  by  the  Dutch."    (B.  C.-C,  p.  33.) 

"  The  history  of  the  British  occupation  of  Essequibo  is  entered  upon  in 
the  Venezuelan  Case  with  a  reservation  that  the  definition  of  the  present 
boundary  must  depend  upon  the  extent  of  Dutch  and  Spanish  rights  in 
1803,  and  that  the  British  claims  cannot  in  law  have  anything  in  the 
history  of  the  present  century  to  support  them      {ih.,  p.  107.) 

*:|c*  1c  *  *  *  * 

"The  contention  that  the  British  claims  cannot  in  law  have  anything 
in  the  history  of  the  present  century  to  support  them,  is  not  correct.  In 
the  first  place  it  is  clear  that  by  virtue  of  Article  IV,  Ilule  {a)  of  the  Treaty 
of  Arbitration,  Great  Britain  is  entitled  to  retain  whatever  territory  has 
been  held  by  her,  or  has  been  subject  to  her  exclusive  political  control  for  a 
l)eriod  of  fifty  years,  although  the  result  might  be  to  give  to  Great  Britain 
territory  which  had  never  been  Dutch,  and  might  even  conceivably  have 
at  one  time  been  Spanish.  Moreover,  there  has  been  nothing  to  prevent 
the  extension  of  British  settlement  and  control,  if  the  regions  into  which 


124  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

such  extensions  were  made  were  at  the  time  lying  vacant.  Territory  added 
to  the  British  Colony  by  such  extension  cannot  be  awarded  to  Venezuela, 
however  recent  the  British  possession  may  have  been.*'  (B.  C.-C,  pp.  107- 
108.) 

If  the  earlier  claim  of  the  Earl  of  Kimbeiley  and  of  Lord 
Salisbury,  and  of  every  other  British  premier  and  Foreign 
Secretary  who  has  written  on  the  subject  during  the  past 
sixty  years,  are  sound,  then  every  inch  of  territory  w^ithin 
Great  Britain's  extreme  claim,  is  now  British  because  it  was 
formerly  Dutch.  In  this  last  British  utterance,  however,  new 
sources  of  title  are,  for  the  first  time,  alleged.  Prescription  is 
invoked  under  Article  IV,  Kule  (a),  of  the  Treaty  of  Arbitration; 
and  that,  too,  with  regard  to  territory,  which,  it  is  suggested, 
*' had  never  been  Dutch,  and  might  even  conceivably  have  at  one 
time  been  Spanish"  So,  too,  contrary  to  every  historical  fact,  and 
in  conflict  with  every  claim  ever  made  by  Dutch  or  British,  it  is 
suggested  that  there  was  a  no-man's  land  between  Dutch-British 
settlements,  on  the  one  hand,  and  Spanish-Venezuelan  settle- 
ments, on  the  other,  and  that  this  '*  vacant  "  territory  could  law- 
fully be  appropriated  by  Great  Britain,  and  must  now  be  awarded 
to  her  "  however  recent  the  British  possession  may  have  been." 

What  is  the  significance  of  a  claim  which  prior  British  asser- 
tions render  impossible  and  untenable?  Has  faith  in  "  Dutch 
inheritance  "  begun  to  weaken?  Is  the  fact  at  last  realized  by  our 
adversaries  that  **  British  possession  "  is,  in  fact,  a  matter  of  very 
recent  date? 


CHAPTER  IV. 
THE   SCHOMBURGK   LINE. 

Our  study  of  the  Diplomatic  Correspondence  would  not  be 
complete  did  we  omit  to  consider  more  fully  than  we  have  yet  done 
Schomburgk's  w^ork  and  the  various  lines  which  bear  his  name. 

The  Schomburgk  Line  has  played  an  important  part  in  this 
boundary  controversy.  Schomburgk's  survey  of  the  Barima 
and  Amacura  in  1841,  the  erection  of  boundary  posts  at  the 
mouths  of  those  rivers,  and  his  formal  assumption  of  possession 
of  that  region  on  behalf  of  Great  Britain,  revived  a  dispute  which 
had  lain  dormant  for  seventy-two  years.  The  claims  to  which  that 
and  subsequent  Schomburgk  surveys  gave  rise,  the  treatment  of 
those  claims  and  surveys  in  after  years  by  the  British  Govern- 
ment, and  the  contradictory  character  of  maps  and  lines  which 
have  at  various  times  been  attributed  to  him,  or  which  have  been 
alleged  to  be  based  on  his  authority,  have  given  rise  to  a  host  of 
questions  whose  scope  would  seem  to  cover  the  whole  boundary 
dispute,  and  whose  seeming  contradictions  have  at  times  seemed 
to  baffle  solution. 

The  investigations  of  the  United  States  Commission,  the  con- 
tributions which  have  since  been  made  to  the  subject,  and  the 
important  maps  and  papers  recently  submitted  with  the  Case  of 
Great  Britain,  tend  to  simplify  these  questions,  and  for  the  firet 
time  render  possible  a  satisfactory  answer  to  them.  It  is  the  pur- 
pose of  this  Chapter  to  formulate  and  to  consider  some  of  these 
questions. 

Before  doing  this,  it  may  be  well  to  state  very  briefly  the  facts 
which  constitute  the  history  of  the  Schomburgk  lines;  the  proof 
of  what  w^e  have  to  say  will  follow. 

In  1839  Schomburgk  proposed  to  the  British  Government  to 
survey  a  line  which,  beginning  at  the   mouth  of  the  Amacura 


126  SCHOMBURQK  LINE. 

Kiver,  runs  sabstanfially  south,  and  cuts  the  Cuyuni  some 
fifty  or  sixty  miles  west  of  the  Essequibo ;  this  is  what  has 
been  called  Schomburgk's  Original  Line  That  particular  line 
was  approved  by  the  British  Government  in  1840,  and  Schom- 
burgk  was  authorized  to  survey  it.  Between  1840  and  1842 
Schomburgk  surveyed  parts  of  another  line,  and  suggested  that 
other  line  to  the  British  Government  as  a  desirable  boundary; 
this  new  line  is  what  has  been  called  Schomhurg¥s  Expanded 
Line.  The  British  Government,  having  had  that  expanded  line 
mapped  by  Mr.  Hebert,  filed  it  away  in  its  secret  archives,  to- 
gether with  Schomburgk's  maps  and  reports,  and  for  the  next 
forty-four  years— that  is  to  say,  until  1886 — continued  to  treat  the 
Original  Schomburgk  Line  of  1839  as  the  boundary  line  of  the 
Colony,  publishing  it  as  such  on  several  official  maps.  In  1886 
the  Expanded  Line,  which  had  been  proposed  by  Schomburgk  in 
1842  and  which  had  lain  rejected  by  the  British  Government  for 
forty-four  years,  was  first  published,  and  from  that  date  to  this, 
that  once  rejected  line  has  been  treated  by  Great  Britain  as  the 
actual  boundary  of  the  Colony. 

Let  us  now  formulate  and  consider  the  various  questions  to 
which  these  facts  give  rise.  And,  firsts  what  was  the  purpose  of 
the  Schomburgk  survey? 

In  his  Memoir  of  July  1,  1839,  addressed  to  Governor  Light, 
Schomburgk  said: 

"  By  an  Additional  Article  to  a  Convention  signed  at  London,  the  13th 
August,  1814,  Deraerara,  Essequibo,  and  Berbice  were  finally  ceded  to  Great 
Britain.  The  British  Empire  acquired,  therefore,  Guiana,  with  the  same 
claims  to  the  termini  of  its  boundaries  as  held  ly  the  Dutch  before  it  was 
ceded  by  Treaty  to  Great  Britain."'    (B.  0.,  VII,  p.  3.) 

"  When  the  settlements  were  in  the  possession  of  the  Netherlands  the 
present  countries  of  Demerara  and  Essequibo  were  divided  into  the  Colonies 
of  Pomeroon,  Essequibo  and  Demerara.  *  *  *  As  the  first  was  the  most 
western  possession,  and  formed  the  boundary  between  Spanish  Guiana,  its 
limits  were  considered  to  extend  from  Punta  Barima,  at  the  mouth  of  the 
Orinoco,  in  latitude  8°  4'  north,  longitude  60°  6'  west,  south-west  by  west 
to  the  mouth  of  the  River  Amacura,  following  the  Caflo  Cuyuni  from  its 


SCHOMBURGK  LINE.  127 

confluence  with  the  Amacura  to  its  source,     *    *     *     These  limits  of  our 
territory  were  contested  by  the  Spaniards."     {ih.,  p.  4.) 

Then  follows  a  discussion  of  alleged  historical  and  geographical 
facts,  concluding  with  this  statement: 

"According  to  the  foregoing  remarks  and  propositions  the  boundaries 
of  British  Guiana  would  be  :     *     *     * 

"  3.  The  Western  Boundary — From  the  source  of  the  River  Takatu, 
along  its  right  bank  to  the  junction  of  the  Kiver  Xuruma  of  the  Portu- 
guese, to  the  source  of  the  River  Cristaes  or  Coting,  in  5°  9'  30"  north  lati- 
tude along  the  northern  slope  of  the  Roriema  Mountains,  to  the  source  of 
the  Caco,  pursuing  from  thence,  in  a  northern  direction,  the  line  of  separa- 
tion between  the  rivers  that  flow  into  the  Mazaruni,  and  the  tributaries  of 
the  Cayuni,  towards  the  Rinacotto,  traversing  the  River  Cayuni  at  the 
mouth  of  the  streams  Aruarua  and  Parawayauri,  and  extending  in  a  north- 
erly direction  across  the  Sierra  Imataca,  to  the  source  of  the  stream 
Cayuni,  following  that  river  to  its  junction  with  the  River  Amacuro  to  the 
embouchure  of  the  latter  river  at  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco."  (B.  C,  VII, 
p.  6). 

After  a  further  review  of  the  question,  he  arrived  at  this  con- 
clusion: 

"  My  deductions  from  the  different  circumstances  to  which  I  have  at- 
tempted to  draw  the  attention  of  your  Excellency,  are  that  it  is  practicable 
to  run  and  mark  the  limits  of  British  Guiana  on  the  system  of  natural  divi- 
sions, and  that  the  limits  thus  defined  are  in  perfect  unison  with  the  title  of 
Her  Britannic  Majesty  to  the  full  extent  of  that  territory."  (B.  0.,  VII, 
p.  7.) 

This  Memoir,  with  an  accompanying  map,  reproduced  as 
Number  43  in  the  British  Atlas,  was  forwarded  by  Governor 
Light  to  the  Marquess  of  Normandy,  with  a  recommendation 
that  Schomburgk  be  employed  to  survey  the  limits  of  British 
Guiana  (B.  C,  VII,  p.  1).  The  British  Colonial  Office  referred 
Governor  Light's  recommendation  to  the  British  Foreign  Office, 
with  the  following  statement: 

"  I  am  directed  by  Lord  John  Russell  to  request  that  you  will  submit 
for  the  consideration  of  Viscount  Palmerston  the  accompanying  copy  and 
extract  of  despatches  which  have  been  received  from  Mr.  Light,  Governor 
of  British  Guiana. 


128  SCHOMBURGK  LINE. 

"  I  am  to  request  that  you  will  observe  to  Viscount  Palmerstou  that 
Lord  John  Russell  considers  it  to  be  important  that  the  boundaries  between 
British  Guiana  and  the  conterminous  territories  should  be  ascertained  and 
agreed  upon  if  possible,  and  that  Mr.  Schomburgk's  researches  in  those 
parts,  which  were  conducted  under  the  direction  of  the  Koyal  Geographical 
Society  with  the  aid  of  Her  Majesty's  Government,  have  qualified  him  in  a 
peculiar  manner  to  be  of  use  should  the  services  of  any  person  acquainted 
with  the  geography  of  British  Guiana  be  required  for  the  delimitation  of 
the  British  territory"  (V.  C,  vol.  iii,  p.  76). 

The  answer  of  the  Foreign  Office  was,  in  part,  as  follows: 

"  With  reference  to  that  part  of  your  letter  in  which  you  state  that  Lord 
J.  Russell  considers  it  to  be  important  that  the  boundaries  of  British  Guiana 
should  be  ascertained  and  agreed  upon  if  possible,  and  that  Mr.  Schom- 
burgk's  researches  in  those  parts  have  qualified  him  in  a  peculiar  manner  to 
be  of  use,  should  the  services  of  any  person  acquainted  with  the  geography 
of  British  Guiana  be  required  for  fixing  the  boundaries  of  British  territori/y 
I  am  to  state  to  you  that  the  course  of  proceeding  which  Lord  Palmerston 
would  suggest  for  the  consideration  of  Lord  J.  Russell  is  that  a  map  of 
British  Guiana  should  be  made  out  according  to  the  boundaries  described  by 
Mr.  Schomburgh,  and  that  the  said  map  should  be  accompanied  by  a  Memoir 
describing  in  detail  the  natural  features  which  define  and  constitute  the 
boundaries  in  question,  and  that  copies  of  that  map  and  Memoir  should  be 
delivered  to  the  Governments  of  Venezuela,  of  Brazil,  and  of  the  Nether- 
lands as  a  statement  of  the  British  claim.  That,  in  the  meanwhile,  British 
Commissioners  should  be  sent  to  erect  landmarks  on  the  ground  in  order  to 
mark  out  by  permanent  erections  the  line  of  boundary  so  claimed  by  Great 
Britain.  It  would  then  rest  with  each  of  the  three  Governments  above 
mentioned  to  make  any  objection  which  they  might  have  to  bring  forward 
against  these  boundaries,  and  to  state  the  reasons  upon  which  such  objec- 
tions might  be  founded,  and  Her  Majesty's  Government  would  then  give 
such  answers  thereto  as  might  appear  proper  and  just"  (V.  C,  vol.  iii, 
pp.  76-77). 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  Mr.  Schomburgk  proposed  to  survey  a 
line  which  he  specifically  described;  which  he  declared  to  be  the 
line  formerly  claimed  by  the  Dutch  as  the  limit  of  their  Colony; 
that  he  proposed  that  line  because,  according  to  him,  the  British 
boundary  and  the  former  Dutch  boundary  were  identical;  and 
that  finally  it  was  proposed  by  Lord  Palmerston  to  draw  the  line 


SCHOMBURGK  LINE.  129 

SO  described  as  a  statement  of  the  British  claim,  and  to  present  it 
as  sucli  to  Holland,  Brazil  and  Venezuela. 

The  propositions  of  Schomburgk  were  accepted  by  the  British 
Government;  and,  with  Schomburgk's  map  before  it  (British 
Atlas,  map  43),  showing  a  line  which  runs  practically  north  and 
south  from  Barima  Point  to  Mt.  Roraima  and  which  cuts  the 
Cuyuni  some  sixty  or  seventy  miles  above  its  junction  with  the 
Essequibo,  that  Government  authorized  a  survey  of  "^  the  boun- 
daries described  by  Mr.  Schomburgk  " — that  is  to  say,  of  that 
north  and  south  line— and  directed  that,  upon  the  completion  of 
that  work,  the  new  map  to  be  prepared,  with  that  line  upon  it, 
should  be  delivered  to  the  Governments  of  Venezuela,  of  Brazil 
and  of  the  Netherlands  "as  a  statement  of  the  British  claim." 

This  is  certainly  good  evidence  of  Great  Britain's  extreme  claim 
at  that  time.  It  is  also  evidence  of  the  fact  that  British  limits, 
were,  in  1840,  regarded  by  the  British  Government  as  identical 
with  the  Dutch  limits  of  the  preceding  century,  and  that  these 
limits  had  constituted  a  common  boundary  with  Spain. 

It  is  evident,  from  what  has  been  said,  that  the  purpose  of  the 
Schomburgk  survey  was  to  mark  out  the  limits  which  had  been 
claimed  by  the  Dutch  as  the  boundary  of  their  Colony,  so  that 
the  line  so  surveyed  might  be  presented  to  the  Governments  of 
Venezuela,  Brazil  and  the  Netherlands  "as  a  statement  of  the 
■British  claim." 

Furthermore,  it  is  evident  that  both  Schomburgk  and  the 
British  Government  regarded  the  north  and  south  line  of  Schom- 
burgk's map  of  1839  (British  Atlas,  map  43)  as  a  correct  statement 
of  what  the  Dutch  had  claimed. 

Whether  or  not  they  were  right  in  this  last  assumption  is  a 
question  of  some  importance,  for  if  the  north  and  south  line  pro- 
posed by  Schomburgk  in  1839  in  fact  exceeded  the  earlier  Dutch 
claim,  then  Great  Britain's  express  determination  to  accept  the 
Dutch  claim  as  a  definition  of  British  rights  would  necessarily  op- 
'  erate  to  cut  down  still  further  the  British  eo^^reme  claim  in  1839. 


130  SCHOMBURGK  LINE. 

Second.— This  leads  us  to  inquire  what  basis  there  was /or 
Schomburgk^s  assertion  that  his  line  of  1S'S9  did  in  fact  express 
the  Dutch  claims  of  the  Eighteenth  Century.  In  his  Memoir  of 
July  1  (16),  1839,  he  cites  no  authority  for  this  assertion,  but  states 
it  simply  as  a  fact.  Two  years  later  apparently  some  doubt  on  this 
point  had  arisen  in  the  minds  of  the  British  authorities,  for  on 
October  23,  1841,  Schomburgk,  at  Governor  Light's  request,  made 
a  "special  report"  on  the  subject.  The  following  statements  are 
taken  from  that  report: 

"In  compliance  with  your  Excellency's  desire  to  be  informed  upon  what 
grounds  I  claimed,  in  Her  Britannic  Majesty's  name,  the  right  of  posses- 
sion of  the  River  Barima,  and  the  eastern  bank  of  the  River  Amacura  as 
the  western  boundary  between  Her  Majesty's  Colony  of  British  Guiana  and 
the  Venezuelan  territory: 

'*  I  beg  leave  to  observe  .  .  .  that,  according  to  Hartsinck,  the 
Dutch  West  India  Company  considered  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco  to  be  the 
limit  of  their  possessions;     .     .     . 

**  Modern  English  geographers  assume  the  Amacura  as  boundary  from 
whence  the  line  of  limit  extends  to  the  sources  of  the  Canno  Coyunni,  and 
from  thence  to  the  River  Cuyuni. 

"I  refer  your  Excellency  to  the  maps  published  by  Mr.  Arrowsmith  and 
others  in  the  course  of  the  last  ten  years."     (B.  C,  VII,  pp.  31-32.) 

So,  in  a  Memorandum  on  the  same  subject,  dated  November 
30,  1841,  he  says: 

*'  In  165il  the  States-General  granted  to  some  Dutch  merchants,  who 
formed  a  corporation  under  the  name  of  the  West  Indische  Maasschappy, 
or  West  India  Company,  an  exclusive  right  to  all  the  African  and  Amer- 
ican commerce,  and  the  right  of  governing  any  new  colonies  which  it 
might  acquire,  retaining  to  themselves  the  power  of  nominating  the  Com- 
pany's Governor-General  abroad. 

"This  grant  comprised  the  coast  from  the  Orinoco  to  the  eastward  and 
Hartsinck,  the  authentic  historian  of  Guiana  or  *  the  Wild  Coast,'  as  it  then 
was  called,  mentions  in  several  places  that  the  limits  of  the  West  India 
Company  extended  to  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco. 

***** 

"  It  has  been  my  aim,  with  the  limited  resources  which  I  have  at  my 
command,  to  prove  that  the  Orinoco  was,  at  the  17th  century,  politically 


SCHOMBURGK  LINE.  131 

recognised  as  the   boundary  of  the  Dutch  West  India  Company."     (B.  C. , 
VII,  p.  35). 

These  various  extracts  give  us  Schoniburgk's  authorities  on 
the  subject  of  Dutch  claims.  In  addition  to  these  he  cited 
historical  facts,  or  alleged  facts,  to  prove  that  the  Dutch  had  a 
right  to  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco;  but  we  are  not  at  this  moment 
concerned  with  Dutch  rights.  What  we  are  now  considering  is 
what  the  Dutch  claimed,  not  what  they  had  a  right  to  claim;  and 
upon  this  point  we  find  that  Schoniburgk's  authorities  are:  (a) 
The  Charter  of  the  Dutch  West  India  Company  of  1621,  (6)  Hart- 
sinck,  (c)  Rolt,  {d)  W.  Faden,  (e)  Thomas  Jefferys,  (/)  Arrow- 
smith.  We  submit  that  these  authorities  are  hardly  sufficient  to 
establish  Schoniburgk's  contention  respecting  Dutch  claims.  As 
regards  the  effect  of  the  Charter  gi-anted  to  the  Dutch  West 
India  Company  in  1621,  the  claim  made  above  by  Schomburgk 
w^as  repeated  in  the  British  Case,  and  was  thus  answered  in  the 
Venezuelan  Counter-Case: 

''  The  States  General  of  the  Netherlands,  by  the  cliarter  which  they 
granted  to  the  Dutch  West  India  Company  in  1621,  granted  to  that  Com- 
pany only  such  monopoly  of  trade  as  it  was  in  their  power  to  grant,  to  wit, 
a  monopoly  against  other  Dutchmen,  not  a  monopoly  against  the  world. 
The  territorial  limits  of  that  monopoly  were  no  less  than  the  whole  of 
North  and  South  America  and  a  good  part  of  Africa.  It  will  hardly  be 
contended  that  the  States-General  claimed  to  control  the  trade  of  those 
continents;  much  less  can  it  be  maintained,  as  intimated  by  the  British 
Case,  that  the  Company  was,  by  virtue  of  the  charter,  vested  with  a 
monopoly  of  trade  as  against  other  nations."     (V.  C.-C,  vol.  i,  p.  74.) 

This  whole  subject  is  fully  discussed  by  Professor  Burr  in  his 
Report  to  the  United  States  Commission,  and  the  fallacy  of  the 
position  taken  by  Schomburgk  is  there  fully  demonstrated. 

Schomburgk's  other  authorities  are  Hartsinck,  who  pubhshed 
in  1770,  Rolt,  who  wrote  in  1750,  and  three  English  geographers 
whose  maps  were  published  in  1773,  1798  and  1832,  respectively. 
These  authorities  may  have  been  sufficient  for  Schomburgk  in 
1839-1841,  because  at  that  time  very  little  was  known  about  the 


132  SCHOMBURGK  LINE. 

subject.      Governor  Light  himself,   in  writing  to  the  Marquess 
of  Normanby,  on  July  15,  1839,  had  said: 

"  There  are  no  documents  in  the  archives  of  the  Colony  respecting  the 
western  or  southern  limits  of  British  Guiana.  The  memoir  of  Mr.  Scliom- 
burgk  is  therefore  valuable."     (B.  C,  VII,  p  1.) 

This  being  the  case,  Schomburgk  can  hardly  be  blamed  for 
having  relied  on  the  only  authorities  within  his  reach.  Fortu- 
nately, however,  we  do  not  now  have  to  depend  upon  the  say-so 
of  historians  or  map-makers,  but  can  go  direct  to  the  archives  of 
the  Dutch  West  India  Company.  Those  archives  place  the  matter 
quite  beyond  dispute:  they  furnish  us  with  the  reports  of  the 
Dutch  Governor  to  the  Dutch  West  India  Company,  with  the 
record  of  the  Proceedings  of  that  Company,  and  with  the  diplo- 
matic correspondence  on  the  subject  between  the  Netherlands  and 
Spain.  That  correspondence  has  been  examined  in  the  preceding 
Chapter,  and  need  not  be  repeated  here  further  than  to  quote  the 
following  passage  from  the  so-called  Great  Remonstrance  presented 
to  the  Court  of  Spain  in  1Y69: 

*' That  they,  the  remonstrants,  considered  it  their  duty  to  further  bring 
to  the  knowledge  of  their  High  Mightinesses  on  this  occasion  that  the 
people  of  the  Orinoco  had  some  time  ago  not  only  begun  to  dispute  with 
the  people  of  the  Essequibo  about  the  fishing  rights  in  the  mouth  of  the 
Orinoco,  and  thereupon  to  prevent  them  by  force  from  enjoying  the  same, 
notwithstanding  tiiat  the  people  of  Essequibo  had  been  for  many  years  in 
peaceful  and  quiet  possession  of  that  fishery,  which  was  of  great  value  to 
them  on  account  of  the  abundance  of  fish  in  it;  but  that,  further,  the 
people  of  Orinoco  were  beginning  to  prevent,  by  force,  their  fishing  upon 
the  territory  of  the  State  itself,  extending  from  tlir  Iiiccr  Marowyne  to 
beyond  the  River  Wayne,  not  far  from  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco,  as  could 
be  seen  by  the  maps  extant  of  those  reyions,  2>articularly  that  of  M.  d'An- 
ville,  which  on  account  of  its  precision,  was  regarded  as  one  of  the  best " 
(B.  C,  IV,  p.  31). 

This  was  the  last  authoritative  Dutch  utterance  on  the  sub- 
ject, and  must  be  deemed  conclusive  as  against  Great  Britain. 
The  d'Anville  lino,  which  is  here  presented  as  the  extreme  Dutch 


SCHOMBURGK  LINE.  133 

claim,    is   thus    described   by   Messrs.    Coote  and  Bolton  in  tlie 
Appendix  to  the  British  Case: 

"  It  is  drawn  in  a  straight  line  from  a  point  on  the  coast  which  almost 
coincides  with  that  known  as  Mocomoco,  nearly  to  the  Amukn  Lake,  sep- 
arating the  waters  of  the  Orinoco  from  those  of  the  Amazon,  leaving  the 
Rivers  Amakura,  Barima,  Carapana  and  Caroni  to  the  west." 
(B.  C,  VII,  p.  353.) 

This  entirely  coincides  with  the  definition  of  territorial  rights 
given  above  by  the  States  General,  when  they  declared  that  the 
"territory  of  the  State  itself"  extends  "from  the  River 
Marowyne  to  beyond  the  River  Wayne,  not  far  from  the  mouth  of 
the  Orinoco." 

Clearly,  then,  the  Dutch  had  not  claimed  Barima  Point  nor  the 
Barima  River  nor  the  Amacura,  but  only  as  far  west  on  the  coast 
as  about  Point  Mocomoco;  and  Schoniburgk  was  wrong  when  he 
asserted  that  the  Dutch  claim  had  included  that  point  and  those 
rivers. 

The  result  of  all  this  is  important.  Whether  the  line  asserted 
by  Schoniburgk  in  1839  to  be  the  line  which  marked  the  limits  of 
prior  Dutch  claims  did  or  did  not  correctly  mark  those  limits, 
Great  Britain,  by  her  action  at  the  time,  accepted  without  quali- 
fication the  principle  laid  down  by  Schomburgk  that  British 
claims  were  to  be  measured  by  Dutch  claims.  Having  committed 
herself  to  that  principle,  the  British  extreme  claim  must  neces- 
sarily be  limited  by  the  Dutch  extreme  claim;  and  hence  Schotn- 
burgk's  error  as  to  what  that  Dutch  extreme  claim  had  been 
places  Great  Britain  in  this  dilemma:  either  she  must  surrender 
her  claim  to  all  territory  west  of  Point  Mocomoco,  including 
Barima  Point  and  the  Barima  and  Amacura  Rivers,  because  the 
Dutch  claim  did  not  include  these;  or  else  she  must  violate  the 
principle  which  she  laid  down  for  her  own  guidance  in  1840,  and 
press  a  claim  to  territory  which  the  Dutch  did  not  claim,  and 
which  both  the  Dutch  West  India  Company  and  the  States 
General  of  the  Netherlands  admitted,  in  1769,  to  be  Spanish. 


134  SCHOMBURGK   LINE. 

Having  thus  disposed  of  Schomburgk's  assertion  that  his  line 
of  1839  represented  what  the  Dutch  had  claimed,  and  having 
shown  the  position  in  which  the  approval  of  Schomburgk's  pro- 
positions and  proposals  by  the  British  Government  places  that 
Government,  let  us  next  inquire 

Third.  —  What  was  it  that  Schomburgk  actually  did  in  tJie 
execution  of  the  task  entrusted  to  him. 

It  is  now  claimed  by  Great  Britain  that  as  a  result  of  his  sur- 
veys Schomburgk  finally  proposed  as  the  western  boundary  of 
British  Guiana  the  line  which  appears  on  Hebert's  map  of  1842 
(British  Atlas,  maps  38,  39).  Let  us,  for  the  present,  assume  the 
correctness  of  that  statement.  Between  this  line  and  the  line 
proposed  in  1839  there  is  a  difference  of  about  10,300  square 
miles.  If  the  line  of  1839  already  exceeded  the  extreme  claim  of 
the  Dutch,  what  shall  be  said  of  this  new  line  of  1842?  Clearly  it 
cannot  have  been  drawn  with  any  regard  to  Dutch  claims.  The 
fact  is  that  having  once  obtained  his  commission  and  started  out 
on  his  work  of  survey,  Schomburgk's  enthusiasm  seems  to  have 
quite  run  away  with  him;  and,  instead  of  adhering  to  his  instruc- 
tions to  survey  the  line  proposed  by  him  in  1839,  and  to  mark  out 
what  the  Dutch  had  claimed,  he  seems  to  have  almost  forgotten 
that  line,  and  to  have  regarded  Dutch  claims  only  when  they  hap- 
pened to  fall  in  with  his  own  notions  of  British  interests.  In 
illustration  of  this  we  quote  the  following  passages  from  his 
reports: 

*'  Taking  namely  the  mouth  of  the  River  Barima  as  the  place  of  depart- 
ure; the  line  of  demarcation  ought  to  be  directed  to  the  mouth  of  the  River 
Amacura,  in  order  to  be  able  to  insure  the  political  importance  which  ahvays 
woidd  be  attached  to  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco  "  (B.  C,  VII,  p.  5), 

Again,  after  having  stated  in  his  report  of  August,  1841,  that 
during  the  period  1750-1760,  "  the  Dutch  possessions  extended 
to  the  foot  oi  that  series  of  falls  of  which  Kanaima  is  the  most 
considerable"  (B.  C.,VII,  p.  28),  and  having  also  stated  that  the 
Island   Tokoro-patti    had  been    "towards  the   close  of   the  last 


SCHOMBURGK  LINE.  135 

century  the  furthest  outpost  of  the  DutcW''  (B.  C,  VII,  p.  28),  he 
nevertheless  makes  the  following  claim  in  his  report  of  January 
23,  1842: 

"I  consider  that  Her  Majesty  has  undoubted  right  to  any  territory 
through  wliich  flow  rivers  that  fall  directly,  or  through  others,  into  the 
River  Esseqiiibo.  Your  Excellency  is  well  aware  that  the  Cuyuui  falls  a 
few  miles  above  the  penal  settlement  into  the  Mazaruni,  and  both  rivers 
after  their  junction  empty  themselves  at  Bartika  Point  into  the  Essequibo. 
Upon  this  principle  the  boundary  line  would  run  from  the  sources  of  the 
Carimani  towards  the  sources  of  the  Cuynni  proper,  and  from  thence 
towards  its  far  more  northern  tributaries,  the  Rivers  Iruari  and  Truang,  and 
thus  approach  the  very  heart  of  Venezuelan  Guiana. 

"These  rivers  are  of  less  importance  to  Great  Britain,  but  as  a  maritime 
power  the  possession  of  Point  Barima  is  of  great  importance,  and  relin- 
quishing the  claim  to  the  territory  watered  by  the  Upper  Cuyuni  and  its 
northern  tributaries,  the  Iruari  or  luruario,  and  Iruang,  Her  Majesty's  Gov- 
ernment acquires  additional  grounds  to  impress  the  claim  of  Point  Barima 
the  Dardanelles  of  the  Orinoco,  as  it  has  been  lately  styled  by  the  Venezue- 
lans. Upon  these  grounds  I  considered  it  unnecessary  to  proceed  further 
towards  the  sources  of  the  Cuyuni"  (B.  0.,  VII,  p.  50). 

Whether  Schomburgk  v\ras  right  or  wrong  in  holding  these 
views — and  we  are  not  now  discussing  that  point— it  must  be  clear 
that  the  line  which  he  was  surveying  when  he  wrote  the  above 
was  not  a  line  based  upon  Dutch  claims.  Neither  could  it  have 
been  based  upon  Dutch  occupation,  for,  according  to  his  own 
statements,  Tokoro-patti,  which  is  about  220  miles  east  of  the 
extreme  line  above  suggested,  w^as  the  farthest  outpost  of  the 
Dutch. 

Of  course,  Schomburgk  never  seriously  proposed  any  such  pre- 
posterous line  as  that  suggested  in  the  passage  above  quoted.  The 
most  that  he  proposed  in  the  Cuyuni  region  was  the  line  ap- 
pearing in  Hebert's  map  of  1842,  but  that  he  regarded  even  that 
line  as  extravagant,  and  as  going  beyond  the  limits  of  Dutch 
rights  can  be  seen  from  the  following  passage  taken  from  his  final 
Memorandum  to  Lord  Stanley,  dated  December  26,  1844: 

"I  expect  likewise  that  the  Venezuelan  Government  will  oppose  the 
right  bank  of  the  River  Cuyuni  being  taken  as  a  boundary  line  from  where 


136  SCHOMBURGK  LtNE. 

that  river  receives  the  Acarabisi  to  its  source,  and  from  thence  to  Mount 
Roraima,  in  consequence  of  the  Spaniards  having  had  a  fortified  post,  called 
Cadiva,  opposite  the  mouth  of  the  River  Curumu.  Her  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment may  easily  meet  euch  an  opposition  by  drawing  their  attention  to  the 
circumstance  that  the  Dutch  possessed  a  fortified  post  whore  the  River 
Barima  falls  into  the  Orinoco  ;  nevertheless,  Her  Majesty's  Government 
has  resolved  to  forego  the  claim  to  the  possession  of  that  territory,  between 
the  former  Dutch  post  and  the  Maroco,  in  order  to  facilitate  the  negotia- 
tions for  an  adjustment  of  the  limits.     (B,  C,  Vlf,  pp.  60-61.) 

In  order  to  grasp  the  full  meaning  of  this  passage,  it  should  be 
remembered  that  it  was  written  as  a  commentary  on  the  line  pro- 
posed a  few  months  before  by  Lord  Aberdeen.  Lord  Aberdeen 
had  proposed  to  yield  to  Venezuela  the  entire  Barima  region,  and 
had  suggested  the  line  on  the  Cuyuni  River  in  the  interior. 
Schomburgk  at  once  recognized  the  fact  that  that  interior  Cuyuni 
line  could  not  be  upheld  upon  the  basis  of  any  Dutch  claim  or 
Dutch  occupation,  and  that  therefore  the  British  had  no  right  to 
it.  He  recognized,  too,  that  Venezuela  could  allege  a  better  title 
to  that  river  by  actual  occupation,  for  he  said  the  Spaniards  *'  had 
a  fortified  post,  called  Cadiva,  opposite  the  mouth  of  the  River 
Curumu,"  but  he  suggested  that  this  objection,  which  he  fully  ex- 
pected would  be  raised  by  Venezuela,  might  be  met  by  Great 
Britain  by  her  saying:  "True,  Spain  was  in  possession  of  the 
Cuyuni,  but  so  were  the  Dutch  in  possession  of  Barima,  and,  as 
we  have  given  you  Barima  on  the  coast,  you  should  give  us  the 
Cuyuni  as  compensation  in  the  interior." 

We  can  hardly  want  better  evidence  to  prove  how  completely 
Schomburgk  had  abandoned  all  thought  of  Dutch  claims  or  even 
of  Dutch  rights,  and  how  intent  he  had  become  upon  securing  for 
Great  Britain  everything  that  could  by  any  possibility  be  obtained 
for  her. 

We  do  not  mean  by  this  that  Schomburgk  ever  completely 
lost  sight  of  the  fact  that  he  must  allege  some  Dutch  justifica- 
tion for  his  Line,  or  that  he  must  advance  arguments  to  prevent 
it  from  having  the  appearance  of   being   wholly  arbitrary.     On 


SCHOMBURGK  LINE.  137 

the  contrary,  he  seized  upon  every  possible  circumstance  to  im- 
press upon  his  line  a  Duch  character,  and  to  make  it  appear  as 
though  even  his  extreme  pretensions  had  some  sort  of  Dutch 
basis.  What  we  mean  is  that  he  did  not  feel  himself  bound  or 
limited  by  any  such  considerations.  One  cannot  read  his  reports 
and  letters,  especially  his  "  confidential "  letter  to  Governor  Light, 
without  feeling  that  Schomburgk,  ever  zealous  for  British  success 
and  for  the  extension  of  British  rule,  had  made  up  his  mind  to 
claim  certain  points  because  he  regarded  them  as  of  political  im- 
portance; and  that  his  arguments,  drawn  from  supposed  his- 
torical or  other  considerations,  were  of  the  nature  of  after- 
thoughts, intended  to  support  what  he  had  already  determined  to 
claim.  His  ''confidential"  letter  of  October  23,  1841,  is  alone 
sufficient  to  prove  this  point;  its  importance  warrants  its  quota- 
tion in  full: 

''  In  my  letter  of  this  day's  date,  I  informed  your  Excellency  upon 
what  grounds  I  founded  the  right  of  possession  of  Her  Majesty  to  tlie 
Barimn,  and  I  have  now  to  point  out  the  importance  wliich  is  attached  to 
this  position,  should  the  British  Government  establish  the  Amacnra  as 
the  boundary  between  British  Guiana  and  Venezuela. 

"The  River  Orinoco  may  be  termed  the  high-road  to  the  interior  of 
the  territories  of  Venezuela  and  New  Granada.  It  has  at  his  mouth  the 
appearance  of  an  ocean,  and  articles  of  commerce  may  be  transported  on 
tiiis  stream  for  400  or  500  leagues.  Nearly  300  tributary  streams,  of  more 
or  less  importance,  flow  into  it,  which  may  serve  as  additional  canals  and 
facilitate  the  commerce  of  the  interior.  Santa  Fe  de  Bogota  may  be  reached 
within  a  distance  of  8  miles  by  one  of  its  tributary  streams,  the  Meta,  and 
operations  of  commerce  or  war,  combined  with  others  from  the  Piicific, 
could  be  carried  on  by  means  of  the  vast  plains  or  llanos.  A  small  fleet 
may  go  up  the  Orinoco  and  the  Meta  within  15  or  20  leagues  of  Santa  Fe, 
and  the  flour  of  New  Granada  may  be  conveyed  down  the  same  way. 

"And  the  only  access  to  this  vast  inland  communication  for  sailing 
vessels  of  more  than  10  feet  draft  of  water  is  by  means  of  the  Boca  de 
Navios,  which  is  commanded  from  Point  Barima. 

"  The  River  Barima  falls  into  the  south  side  of  the  Orinoco  near  the 
most  eastern  point  of  its  mouth  and  in  a  direction  almost  parallel  to  the 
coast.     Point  Barima  is,  therefore,  bounded  to  the  west  by  the  river  of  that 


138  SCHOMBURGK  LINE. 

name,  to  the  north  by  the  Orinoco,  to  the  east  by  the  Atlantic,  and  to  the 
south  by  impenetrable  forests.  Colonel  Moody  considers  this  position '  sns- 
ceptable  [sic]  of  being  fortified  so  as  to  resist  almost  any  attack  on  the  sea- 
side— the  small  depth  of  water,  the  nature  of  the  tides,  and  its  muddy 
shores,  defend  it.  The  Barima,  and  the  uncultivated  forests  on  marshy 
ground,  present  an  impenetrable  barrier  against  the  interior,  and  debarka- 
tion from  the  Orinoco  might  be  put  under  the  fire  of  any  number  of  guns — 
and  the  land  reproaches  [sic]  on  that  soil  could  be  easily  rendered  inacces- 
sible to  an  invading  force.' 

''This  is  the  importance  which  Colonel  Moody  in  a  military  respect  has 
attached  to  this  point,  and  which,  so  far  as  my  knowledge  goes  in  this  mat- 
ter, is  fully  born  out  by  personal  inspection  during  my  late  survey  of  the 
entrance  to  the  Barima. 

"The  Venezuelan  Government,  as  at  present  organised,  tottering  in 
their  interior  relations,  and  embarrassed  by  a  number  of  slaves  who  would 
hail  the  opportunity  to  shake  off  tlieir  fetters,  hated  and  despised  by  the 
aborigines,  whom  maltreatment  and  cruelties  have  alienated,  would  be  an 
insignificant  enemy — but  in  the  hands  of  any  of  the  maritime  European 
powers,  matters  would  assume  another  aspect. 

"  France  has  attempted  to  establish  a  fortified  position  at  the  mouth 
of  the  Amazon  near  Macapa,  which  she  claims  as  the  eastern  boundary  of 
Cayenne.  A  settlement  at  this  spot  commands  the  commerce  of  the  Ama- 
zon, and  this  no  doubt,  is  the  reason  why  this  Power  puts  such  importance 
upon  its  possession.  Supposing  that  unforeseen  circumstances  should  put 
France  in  occupation  of  Point  Barima  at  the  Orinoco,  and  that  Macapa  at 
the  Amazon  is  ceded  to  her,  she  will  then  command  the  commerce  of  the 
two  first  rivers  of  South  America,  and  hold  the  military  keys  of  the  north- 
ern provinces  of  Brazil  and  of  the  former  Spanish  provinces  of  South  Am- 
erica, north  of  the  equator,  which  territories  will  be  always  at  the  mercy  of 
that  power  which  commands  the  channels  to  their  commerce. 

"Finally,  trusting  to  tlie  prospects  of  prosperity  and  a  continued  emig- 
ration to  British  Guiana,  there  could  not  be  a  more  favourable  position  for  a 
commercial  settlement  than  Point  Barima.  The  capital  of  Spanish  Guayana 
is  Angostura,  situated  a  distance  of  85  leagues  from  the  mouth  of  tlie 
Orinoco,  and  the  intricate  navigation  of  that  river  presents  numerous  diffi- 
culties to  foreign  vessels  going  up  the  Orinoco  as  far  as  Angostura. 

"A  commercial  settlement  established  at  the  extreme  point  of  Barima, 
where  one  part  of  the  town  would  front  the  River  Barima,  and  the  other 
the  Orinoco,  would  soon  induce  foreign  vessels  to  dispose  of  their  cargoes  at 
the  new  settlement,   and  leave  the  further  transport  to  the  interior  to 


SCHOMBURGK  LINE.  139 

smaller  craft ;  naturally  this  premises  the  supposition  that  amicable  rela- 
tions and  commercial  treaties  exist  between  Great  Britain  and  Venezuela. 
The  bar  at  the  Barima  admits  vessels  of  16  feet  draft  of  water,  which  if 
once  entered,  may  safely  anchor  in  from  4  to  5  fathoms  water.  The  pecu- 
liar formation  of  the  fluvial  system  of  the  coastland  between  the  Barima 
and  the  Essequibo  admits  an  inland  navigation,  in  punts  and  barges,  to 
Richmond  Estate,  on  the  Arabisi  Coast  of  the  Essequibo,  which  with  a  few 
improvements  might  vie  with  any  of  the  interior  canals  of  England."  (B. 
C,  VII,  pp.  33-84). 

In  line  with  the  above  are  the  following  statements  taken  from 

three  other  of  Schomburgk's  letters: 

''Taking  ijaraely  the  mouth  of  the  River  Barima  as  the  place  of  depart- 
ure; the  line  of  demarcation  ought  to  be  directed  to  the  mouth  of  the  River 
Amacnra,  in  order  to  he  able  to  insure  the  political  importance  which  alivays 
would  be  attached  to  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco,  and  to  prevent  stragglers 
from  escaping  into  the  Republic  of  Venezuela."  (B.  C,  VII,  p.  5). 

Again : 

''A  short  distance  above  the  mouth  of  the  River  Araturi  is  the  Vene- 
zuelan Post  Coriabo.  The  importance  of  this  natural  canal  in  a  military  or 
a  commercial  point  of  view  is  undeniable,  but  its  importance  to  Venezuela 
(if  a  denser  population  should  make  it  such)  is  rendered  abortive  in  a  mili- 
tary aspect  if  Great  Britain  possesses  the  right  or  eastern  bank  of  the  Ama- 
CHra"(B.  C,  VII,  p.  16). 

Again: 

"I  have  the  honour  to  enclose  herewith  a  memorial  in  which  the  grounds 
are  recapitulated,  chiefly  with  regard  of  Her  Majesty's  right  of  possession  to 
the  Barima — a  point  of  more  importance  to  Great  Britain  than  I  have  ven- 
tured to  make  it  appear  in  my  memorial.  ^^  (B.  C,  VII,  p.  34). 

With  such  views  regarding  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco,  it  is  not 
surprising  that  Schomburgk  should  have  gone  beyond  everything 
ever  claimed  by  the  Dutch,  and  that  he  should  have  dwelt  at 
length  upon  and  given  importance  to  supposed  historical  facts, 
some  of  which  were  without  foundation,  and  many  of  which  were 
trivial  in  the  extreme. 

It  is  not  the  purpose  of  this  Chapter  to  discuss  those  alleged 
facts.     That  will  be  done  in  other  parts  of  this  argument.     For 


140  SCHOMBURGK  LtNE. 

the  present  it  will  suffice  to  say  that  Mr.  Schomburgk  had  very 
limited  means  for  ascertaining  the  truth  of  what  he  asserted,  and 
that  many  points  which  were  formerly  in  doubt  are  now  too  clear 
to  admit  of  discussion. 

It  may  be  worth  while  to  point  out  in  connection  with  Schom- 
burgk's  allegations  of  historical  facts  that  while  he  was  able  to 
find,  either  in  historical  works  or  in  current  Indian  traditions, 
statements  which  seemingly  supported  a  Dutch  claim  to  the 
Barima,  he  failed  to  find  anything  whatever  to  support  his  claim 
to  the  line  aiound  the  great  bend  of  the  Cuyuni  in  the  interior. 
Indeed,  he  found  evidence  of  the  strongest  kind  to  contradict  that 
claim,  for  he  himself  testifies  that  the  Spaniards  had  "had  a  forti- 
fied post,  called  Cadiva,  opposite  the  mouth  of  the  River  Curumu  " 
(B.  C,  VII,  p.  60),  and,  commenting  on  Lord  Aberdeen's  proposed 
line  of  1844,  he  frankly  said  that  he  expected  Venezuela  would, 
because  of  that  Spanish  fort,  object  to  that  part  of  the  line.  He 
was  certainly  right  in  thus  ap)preciating  the  importance  of  the 
Curumu  fort.  If  "  a  small  shelter"  at  Barima  in  1684,  which  had 
erected  without  the  knowledge  or  sanction  of  the  Dutch  West  been 
India  Company,  which  as  soon  as  its  existence  had  been  reported 
to  that  Company  had  been  ordered  to  be  abandoned,  which  after  a 
temporary  occupation  of  at  most  a  few  months  had  been  deserted 
and  forgotten,  and  which  had  remained  abandoned  for  over  a 
century  and  a  half,  could  be  invoked  by  Great  Britain  to 
prove  a  Dutch  title;  surely  a  Spanish  fort,  authorized  by  the 
Spanish  Government,  erected  on  the  southern  bank  of  the  Cuyuni 
by  Spanish  authorities,  manned  by  Spanish  troops,  and  maintained 
by  Spain  for  the  very  purpose  of  asserting  her  sovereignty  over 
that  region,  might  not  unwarrantably  be  invoked  to  prove  a 
Spanish  title. 

It  was  in  the  face  of  this  recognized  Venezuelan  right  that 
Schomburgk  ran  his  line  past  the  remains  of  the  old  Spanish  fort 
and  around  the  great  bend  of  the  Cuyuni,  leaving  the  very  site  of 
the  Spanish  fort  within  British  limits.    This  is  the  line  which 


SCHOMBURGK  LINE.  141 

until  1897,  Great  Britain  refused  to  arbitrate,  and  with  reference 
to  which,  in  1895,  Lord  Salisbury  thus  wrote: 

"It  is  important  to  notice  that  Sir  K,  Schomburgk  did  not  discover  or 
invent  any  new  boundaries.  He  took  particular  care  to  fortify  himself  v^^ith 
the  history  of  the  case.  He  had  further  from  actual  exploration  and  infor- 
mation obtained  from  the  Indians,  and/ro;«  the  evidence  of  local  remains, 
as  at  Barima,  and  local  traditions,  as  o)i  the  Guyuni,  fixed  the  limits  of  the 
Dutch  possessions,  and  the  zone  from  which  all  trace  of  Sjjanish  i7ifluence 
iras  absent.     On  such  data  he  based  his  reports"  (V.  C-C,  vol.  iii,  p.  2?7). 

Evidently  the  views  entertained  by  Lord  Salisbury  in  1895  were 
not  the  views  entertained  by  his  predecessors  in  1842,  for  upon  no 
other  theory  can  we  explain  the  fact  that  this  new  line  proposed 

f  by  Schomburgk  was  not  published  to  the  world  or  communicated 
to  Venezuela  until  1886,  that  is  to  say,  forty  four  years  after  Heb- 

I  ert  had  completed  the  map  now  published  on  pages  38-39  of  the 
British  Atlas. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  when  Lord  Palmerston  authorized 
the  surveys  pro[)Osed  by  Schomburgk,  he  had  before  him  Schom- 
burgk's  map  of  1839,  with  the  line  which,  running  apparently 
north  and  south,  cuts  the  Cuyuni  fifty  or  sixty  miles  west  of  the 
Essequibo.  He  also  had  befoie  him  the  Memoir  in  which  Schom- 
burgk described  that  line.  With  that  map  and  that  Memoir  before 
him,  Lord  Palmerston  suggested  to  Lord  John  Russell  "that  a 

f  map  of  British  Guiana  should  be  made  out  according  to  the  boun- 
daries described  by  Mr.  Schomburgk"  (V.  C,  vol.  iii,  p.  77);  and 
then  added  that  the  map  thus  to  be  prepared  should,  with  an  ac- 
companying Memoir,  be  delivered  to  Venezuela,  Brazil  and  the 
Netherlands,  ^^  as  a  statement  of  the  British  claim  "  (V.  C,  vol.  iii, 

\   p.  TT). 

Schomburgk,  having  received  his  commission,  made  his  sur- 

.    veys  and  prepared  various  maps,  memoirs  and  reports.     The  line 

'  which  he  in  part  drew  upon  these  maps,  and  in  part  suggested  in 
his  reports,  was  by  Hebert  transferred  in  full  on  to  a  map  pre- 

\    pared  by  him  for  the  British  Government  in  1842.     This  new  line 

[    was  not  the  line  whose  survey  Viscount  Palmerston  had  author- 


142  SCHOMBURGK   LINE. 

ized  in  1840;  it  was  not  the  line  which  he  had  suggested  should  he 
presented  to  Venezuela,  Brazil  and  the  Netherlands  as  a  state- 
ment of  the  British  claim;  and  the  British  Government,  in  1842, 
with  Hebei  t's  map,  with  Schomburgk's  map  and  with  a  number  of 
Schomburgk's  reports  before  it,  recognized  these  facts,  and,  instead 
of  presenting  this  new  map  and  these  reports  to  Venezuela,  Brazil 
and  the  Netherlands,  as  a  statement  of  the  British  claim,  filed 
them  away  in  its  secret  archives  and  kept  them  there  for  forty- 
four  years. 

But  this  is  not  the  only  proof  which  we  have  that  the  British 
Government,  in  1842,  refused  to  accept  as  a  statement  of  the 
British  claim  that  new  line  suggested  by  Schomburgk;  and  that, 
instead,  it  adhered  to  the  north  and  south  line  of  1839.  Let  us  look 
a  little  further  into  this  matter. 

It  was  in  1867  that  Great  Britain  was  first  called  upon  to 
utilize  the  Schomburgk  maps.  In  that  year,  according  to  the 
statements  of  the  British  Case,  a  tracing  of  Schomburgk's  large 
'*  physical  map  "  (British  Atlas,  maps  47-48),  upon  which  Schom- 
burgk had  drawn  no  boundary  whatever,  was  "made  by  Mr. 
Stanford  for  the  use  of  the  Colonial  Government"  (B.  C,  p.  143). 
Now,  although  no  boundary  appears  on  Schomburgk's  original 
"physical  map, "  it  is  clear,  from  what  follows,  that  the  copy  of  that 
map,  which  was  prepared  by  Mr.  Stanford,  and  which  was  by  the 
British  Government  furnished  "  to  the  Colony  in  February,  1867, 
for  the  use  of  the  colonial  surveys  "(B.  C,  p.  143),  did  have  a 
boundary  upon  it.  The  surveyors  in  question  were  Messrs. 
Brown  and  Sawkins,  who  were  employed  to  make  a  geological 
survey  of  the  British  Colony.  Of  course,  in  order  to  do  this,  they 
had  to  know  how  far  the  Colony  extended,  and  hence  a  map  of 
the  boundary  was  furnished  them  by  the  British  Government. 
Referring  to  the  map  thus  furnished,  and  which  could  have  been 
no  other  than  that  sent  out  for  their  use  from  London,  Messrs. 
Brown  and  Sawkins  use  such  expressions  as  these:  "  The  bound- 
ary of  Venezuela,  according  to  the  map  furnished  us,''  "  as  far  as 


SCHOMBURGK  LINE.  143 

Ottomong  River,  which  forms  the  boundary  line  between  this 
Colony  and  Venezuela,"  "  near  the  boundary  line  of  the  Colony,  as 
drawn  on  Schomburgk's  map."  The  report  of  Brown  and  Saw- 
kins  on  the  geology  of  British  Guiana  was  published  by  order  of 
the  Lords  Commissioners  of  the  Treasui-y  in  1875  (B.  C,  p.  143), 
and  the  niap  accompanying  that  report  gives  a  boundary  line  cor- 
responding substantially  with  the  noi  th  and  south  line  proposed 
by  Schomburgk  in  1839,  and  adopted  in  1840  by  the  British  Gov- 
ernment "as  a  statement  of  the  British  claim."  The  geological 
features  of  this  map,  and  its  boundary  line,  were  reproduced  by 
one  of  the  maps  published  by  the  United  States  Commission  and 
reprinted  in  the  Venezuelan  Atlas  as  Map  No.  2  (see  also,  same, 
map  90). 

Where  did  the  line  which  appeared  on  the  map  furnished 
to  Messrs.  Brown  and  Sawkins  as  a  guide  for  their  work  come 
from?  It  was  certainly  placed  there  by  authority.  The  map 
itself  had  been  copied  by  Mr,  Stanford  in  London  from  a  Schom- 
burgk map  upon  which  no  boundary  appeared.  The  only  conclu- 
sion to  be  drawn  from  these  circumstances  is  that  Mi-.  Stanford 
was  directed  by  the  British  Government  itself  to  place  upon  the 
map  prepared  for  the  use  of  the  surveyors  the  line  which  Brown 
and  Sawkins  afterwards  found  on  that  map.  By  this  action,  and 
by  its  subsequent  adoption  of  Brown  and  Sawkins'  work,  as  evi- 
denced by  the  publication  of  that  work  by  order  of  the  Lords 
Com  mission  el's  of  the  Treasury,  the  British  Government  for  the 
second  time  since  1840  declared  the  north  and  south  Schomburgk 
Line  of  1839  to  be  the  boundary  of  the  Colony.  That  the  British 
Government  had  in  its  possession  at  the  time  the  Hubert  map  of 
1842  and  the  various  Schomburgk  maps  and  reports  which  have 
since  been  published,  merely  proves  that  it  had  not  yet  given  its 
assent  to  Schomburgk's  proposals  of  1842,  and  that  it  still  re- 
garded his  Expanded  Line  of  that  date  as  too  extravagant  to 
adopt  even  as  the  British  extreme  claim. 


144  SCHOMBURGK  LINE. 

Another  British  official  map  was  published  in  1876.  The  Brit- 
ish Case  gives  the  following  account  of  it: 

"  The  third  of  these  maps  was  prepared  by  Mr.  Stanford  in  1875,  and 
published  in  1876,  It  was  prepared  at  the  instance  of  the  Colonial  au- 
thorities, and  had  upon  it  the  following  note — 

"  Note. — The  boundaries  indicated  on  this  map  are  those  laid  down  by 
the  late  Sir  Robert  8chombiir(jh,  luho  was  engaged  in  exploring  the  Colony 
during  the  years  1835  to  1839  under  the  direction  of  the  Royal  Geographi- 
cal Society.  But  the  boundaries  thus  laid  down  between  Brazil  on  the  one 
side  and  Venezuela  on  the  other  and  the  Colony  of  British  Guiana  must  not 
be  taken  as  authoritative,  as  they  have  never  been  adjusted  by  the  respective 
Governments:  And  a7i  engagement  subsists  between  the  Governments  of 
Great  Britain  and  Venezuela  by  lohich  neither  is  at  liberty  to  encroach 
upon  or  occupy  territory  claimed  by  both."     (B.  C,  p.  144.) 

This  is  the  map  published  on  page  41  of  the  British  Atlas  and 
as  No.  88  in  the  Venezuelan  Atlas.  It  was  prepared  by  Mr. 
Stanford,  the  same  who,  in  18CT,  had  copied  the  map  furnished  to 
Brown  and  Sawkins;  as  might  be  expected,  this  new  map  gave 
the  Schomburgk  north  and  south  line  of  1839  as  the  boundary  of 
the  Colony.  The  British  Case  informs  us  that  the  map  was  pre- 
pared *'at  the  instance  of  the  Colonial  authorities;  "  and  this,  of 
course,  stamps  it  as  an  official  publication. 

The  note  appearing  upon  the  face  of  the  map  is  most  signifi- 
cant, and  should  be  read  in  connection  with  our  discussion  in  the 
Chapter  preceding,  on  the  subject  of  the  extent  of  the  territory  in 
dispute  in  1850.  In  that  Chapter  we  assumed,  for  the  sake  of 
argument,  that  the  Schomburgk  Line,  which  marked  Great  Brit- 
ain's extreme  claim  in  1850,  was  the  Expanded  Schomburgk  Line 
of  1842;  here,  however,  we  have  the  evidence  to  prove  that  Great 
Britain's  extreme  claim  at  that  time,  and  for  at  least  twenty-six 
years  thereafter,  went  no  further  than  the  line  proposed  by 
Schomburgk  in  1839.  No  other  interpretation  can  be  put  upon 
this  note:  its  purpose  is  clearly  to  warn  British  settlers  from  going 
into  the  disputed  territory,  and  to  let  it  be  known  that  the  line 


SCHOMBURGK   LINE.  146 

claimed  in  the  map  was  a  claim  only,  and  not  a  boundary  which 
was  accepted  as  settled. 

This  note  has  another  significance.  It  states  that  "  the  bound- 
aries indicated  on  this  map  are  those  laid  down  by  the  late  Sir 
Robert  Schomburgk."  This  is  a  distinct  declaration  by  the 
Colonial  authorities,  at  whose  instance  the  map  was  prepared 
and  published,  that  the  line  appearing  on  that  map  was  a  line 
which,  at  that  time,  the  British  Government  regarded  as  the 
Schomburgk  Line.  That  map,  with  that  statement  upon  it,  was 
in  use  for  both  official  and  private  purposes  for  ten  years  before 
the  British  Government  discovered  that  the  Schomburgk  Line, 
which  had  been  proposed  in  1839,  which  had  been  accepted  by 
Lord  Palmerston  and  Lord  John  Russell  in  1840  as  a  statement  of 
the  British  claim,  and  which  the  British  Government  had  since 
that  time  treated  as  the  extreme  boundary  of  the  Colony,  was 
neither  the  Schomburgk  Line,  nor  a  statement  of  the  British  claim, 
nor  the  boundary  of  the  Colony;  it  was  at  the  same  time  discov- 
ered that  another  hne,  whicli  had  been  proposed  by  Schomburgk 
in  1842,  which  Schomburgk  himself  in  1844  had  regarded  as  ex- 
travagant, and  which  the  British  Government  had,  at  that  time, 
considered  and  refused  to  adopt,  was  after  all  the  only  Schom- 
burgk Line,  and  the  true  boundary  of  the  Colony.  Can  the 
British  Government  be  permitted  thus  to  contradict  its  previous 
statements,  thus  to  brush  aside  the  history  of  forty-four  years, 
and  by  the  stroke  of  a  pen  to  thus  add  10,000  square  miles  to  her 
domain? 

But  we  have  not  yet  finished  with  this  pregnant  note.  Why 
was  it  erased  when,  in  1886,  the  original  Schomburgk  Line  was 
taken  out  and  the  Expanded  Schomburgk  Line  substituted  in  its 
place?  In  1886,  and  even  as  late  as  1887,  the  British  Government 
was  still  appealing  to  the  Agreement  of  1850  as  yet  in  force;  the 
note  could  not,  therefore,  have  been  erased  because  of  any  state- 
ment which  it  contained  with  reference  to  that  Agreement,  un- 
less indeed  Great  Britain  is  ready  to  confess  that  it  was  no  longer 


146  SCHOMBURGK    LINE. 

her  intention  to  observe  that  Agreement,  and  that  therefore  she 
erased  the  note.  The  only  other  statement  contained  in  the  note, 
apart  from  the  purely  formal  one  that  Schomburgk  had  been  en- 
gaged in  exploring  the  Colony  during  the  years  1835-1839,  was 
the  statement  that  the  boundaries  on  the  map  published  in  18Y6 
were  those  laid  down  by  Sir  Robert  Schomburgk,  The  boundary 
which  for  ten  years  that  note  had  declared  to  be  the  Schomburgk 
Line  was  now  to  be  erased  and  a  new  line  substituted.  With  the 
old  line,  therefore,  disappeared  also  the  old  statement — and  yet 
Great  Britain  maintains  to-day  that  there  is  only  one  Schomhiirgk 
Line,  and  that  the  line  first  published  in  1886  is  that  line! 

After  these  various  official  publications  of  the  original  Schom- 
burgk Line  of  1839  as  the  boundary  claimed  by  Great  Britain, 
reference  to  other  maps,  published  by  persons  who  were  in  a  posi- 
tion to  know  what  Schomburgk's  views  were,  and  what  the  Brit- 
ish Government  claimed  as  a  result  of  his  surveys,  would  seem  to 
be  unnecessary.  There  were  many  such  publications;  we  shall 
briefly  refer  to  only  one  or  two  of  them,  but  before  doing  so  we 
stop  to  correct  an  erroneous  statement  of  the  British  Case  to  the 
effect  that  as  early  as  the  date  of  Schomburgk's  surveys  the 
Venezuelan  Government  was  notified  of  the  Expanded  Line  and 
made  remonstrance  upon  the  subject.  The  following  is  the 
language  of  the  British  Case  in  this  connection: 

"The  Venezuelan  Government  were  aware  of  the  position  of  the 
boundary  posts  erected  bj  Schomburgk,  and  made  remonstrances  to  Her 
Majesty's  Government  upon  the  subject. 

"  The  line  proposed  by  Lord  Aberdeen  in  1844,  from  the  source  of  the 
Acarabisi  to  its  junction  with  the  Cuyuni  and  then  along  the  Cuyuni  to  its 
source,  corresponded  with  the  line  proposed  by  Schomburgk  for  that  part 
of  the  frontier. 

"From  that  time  up  to  1877  no  definite  proposals  were  put  forward, 
and  there  was  consequently  nothing  to  call  for  any  reference  to  the  Schom- 
burgk line.  But  in  the  first  proposal  made  by  Her  Majesty's  Government 
after  the  resumption  of  negotiations  in  1881  specific  reference  was  made  to 
'Schomburgk's  original  Map'  and  to  'the  boundary  Hne  proposed    by 


SCHOMBURGK  LINE.  14Y 

Schomburgk/  and  the  latter  was  described  in  terms  which  leave  no  doubt 
as  to  its  direction.  Moreover,  the  map  illustrating  the  proposal,  which  was 
sent  to  the  Government  of  Venezuela  in  Earl  Granville's  despatch  of  the 
15th  September,  1881,  was  a  reduction  of  Hebert's  Map.  and  gave  the  true 
Schomburgk  line,  with  those  variations  only,  in  the  vicinity  of  the  coast, 
which  were  necessitated  by  the  terms  of  Lord  Granville's  proposal. "  (B.  C, 
pp.  144-145.) 

In  this  passage  the  British  Government  alleges  three  sources 
whence  Venezuela,  prior  to  1886,  might  have  derived  knowledge 
of  Schomhurgk's  Expanded  Line:  the  first  was  the  erection  of 
the  Schomburgk  boundary  posts;  the  second  Lord  Aberdeen's 
proposal  in  1844;  and  the  third  Lord  Granville's  proposal  in 
1881. 

As  regards  the  Schomburgk  posts,  we  have  to  remark  that 
the  two  great  bends  which  characterize  tlie  Expanded  Schom- 
burgk Line,  namely,  the  one  around  the  head  waters  of  the  Barima, 
and  the  one  around  the  Cuyuni  to  its  source,  were  not  marked  by 
Schomburgk  with  any  posts  whatever,  because  he  never  visited 
either  locality.  A  glance  at  Schombuigk's  maps  and  at  Hebert's 
map,  British  Atlas  (maps  38,  39,  44,  46),  shows  that  on  the  western 
boundary,  after  leaving  the  mouth  of  the  Amacura  River,  the 
few  boundary  marks  which  Schomburgk  fixed  were  all  far  in  the 
interior  where  probably  no  one  ever  saw  them.  Such  boundary 
marks,  even  if  they  had  been  known  to  the  Venezuelan  Govern- 
ment, would  have  been  entirely  inadequate  to  convey  any  notion 
of  Schomburgk^ s  Expanded  Line,  and  therefore  to  cite  these  as  a 
proof  that  Venezuela  had  knowledge  of  that  line  is  hardly  calcu- 
lated to  inspire  confidence  in  the  belief  that  any  very  conclusive 
evidence  on  that  point  can  be  adduced.  The  only  posts  to  which 
Venezuela's  attention  appears  to  have  been  drawn  were  those  at 
Barima  Point,  and  at  the  mouth  of  the  Amacura  River;  both  of 
these  points  are  on  the  Schomburgk  Line  of  1839,  and  hence 
these  boundary  posts  could  not  have  indicated  that  Great  Britain 
claimed  any  other  than  that  Line. 


148  SCHOMBURGK  LINE. 

Lord  Aberdeen's  proposal  of  1844  was  for  a  line  starting  from 
the  mouth  of  the  Moruca,  thence  to  the  Cuyuni  by  the  Waini, 
the  Aunania  and  the  Acarabisi,  and  thence  up  the  Cuyuni  to  its 
source  and  to  Mount  Roraima.  It  was  on  its  face  a  compromise 
proposal,  and  Lord  Aberdeen  nowhere  referred  to  any  part  of  it 
as  the  Schomburgk  Line.  Clearly,  then,  the  present  British  con- 
tention that  Lord  Aberdeen's  proposal  of  that  Une  to  Venezuela 
was  a  notification  to  that  Government  of  the  Expanded  Schom- 
burgk Line  cannot  be  sound;  with  equal  reason  might  Venezuela 
contend  that  she  hei-self  had  the  right  to  regard  the  whole  of  the 
Aberdeen  Line  as  the  line  proposed  by  Schomburgk;  for  certainly 
Lord  Aberdeen,  in  describing  his  line,  made  no  distinction  be- 
tween what  was  and  what  was  not  Schomburgk's;  and  in  the 
course  of  the  whole  dispatch  concerning  this  proposal  Schom- 
burgk is  mentioned  only  once,  when  reference  is  made  to  the  fact 
that  on  his  visit  to  the  Bariraa  he  had  there  found  *'  traces  of  the 
entrenchment  and  surrounding  cultivation,"  attributed  by  him  to 
the  Dutch. 

Coming  now  to  the  dispatch  of  Earl  Granville  of  September 
15,  1881,  we  confidently  affirm  that  it  proves  the  very  reverse 
of  what  Great  Britain  contends.  As  stated  in  the  British  Case, 
that  dispatch  to  the  Government  of  Venezuela  was  accompanied 
by  a  map  which  showed  the  line  proposed  by  Lord  Granville, 
which  in  the  interior  followed  the  great  bend  of  the  Cuyuni  to  its 
source,  and  which  in  that  respect  coincided  with  Schomburgk's 
Expatided  Line  of  1842.  But  the  significant  point  of  the  matter 
is  that  Earl  Granville,  in  the  dispat<;h  in  question,  not  only  failed 
to  identify  his  proposed  line  in  the  interior  beyond  the  junction  of 
the  Acarabisi  and  Cuyuni  with  the  Schomburgk  Line^  but  on  the 
contrary,  distinguished  it  from  that  line,  and  showed  conclusively 
by  the  language  he  usetl  that  what  he  regarded  as  the  true  Schom- 
burgk Line  was  a  line  different  from  that  around  the  Cuyuni 
bend.  This  is  the  language  in  which  Elarl  Granville  defined  that 
part  of  his  proposed  line: 


SCHOMBURGK  LINE.  149 

"■  Thence  (that  is  to  say,  from  the  junction  of  the  Cnyuni  and  the 
Acarabisi)  along  the  left  bank  of  the  River  Cuynni  to  its  source,  and  from 
thence  in  a  south-easterly  direction  XO  the  line  i\&  proposed  by  Schom- 
burgk."    (B.  C,  VII,  p.  100.) 

No  man  could  have  used  that  language  if  he  understood  that 
the  line  he  was  describing  was  the  Schomburgk  Line  from  the 
junction  of  the  Cuyuni  and  the  Acarabisi  to  the  end.  Lord  Gran- 
ville wrote  the  above  in  1881;  for  forty-one  years  his  Government 
had  been  treating  the  Schomburgk  Line  of  18S9  as  the  only 
Schomburgk  Line  and  as  the  boundary  of  British  Guiana;  it  had 
authorized  the  geological  survey  of  the  Colony  upon  the  basis  of 
that  1839  boundary;  it  had  published  the  great  Colonial  map  of 
1876  with  that  boundai'y  upon  it,  and  no  other  line  would  so 
naturally  have  been  in  Earl  Granville's  mind  when  he  penned  the 
above  words.  It  was  from  the  Acarabisi  that  his  own  proposed 
line  was  to  run,  and,  having  traced  the  Cuyuni  to  its  source,  that 
proposed  line  was  then  to  turn  in  a  southeasterly  direction  and  go 
back  To  the  Schomburgk  Line.  Can  such  language  be  held  to  be 
notice  to  Venezuela  of  the  Expanded  Schomburgk  Line  of  1842? 
And  if  it  could,  can  the  British  Government  explain  why  it  waited 
from  1842  to  1881  to  give  that  notice? 

Having  thus  disposed  of  the  claims  now  made  by  the  British 
Case  with  regard  to  Venezuela's  having  had  notice  of  the  Ex- 
panded Schomburgk  Line,  let  us  once  more  return  to  the  matter 
of  publications,  and  see  what  light  other  maps  throw  on  Great 
Biitain's  attitude  from  1840  to  1886  . 

A  full  account  of  Sir  Robert  Schomburgk's  boundary  explora- 
tions was  published  at  Leipzig,  in  1847,  in  three  volumes,  prepared 
by  his  brother  Richard,  who  accompanied  him  most  of  the  way  as 
botanist.  The  text  of  this  work  made  no  reference  to  boundary, 
but  its  map — stated  in  a  note  to  have  been  prepared  from  Sir 
Robert's  large  map  in  the  Colonial  Office  in  London— gave  the 
boundary  line,  declared  by  another  note  to  be  the  boundary  claim,ed 
by  Great  Britain;  the  line  given  is  substantially  the  north  and 


150  SCHOMBUKGK   LINE. 

south  line  of  1839  (British  Atlas,  map  40).  The  British  Case  in- 
forms us  that  Richard  Schomburgk  had  access  only  "to  the  map 
of  the  Colony  prepared  by  his  brothei',  showing  merely  the  physical 
features."  This  may  be  so,  and  yet  Richard  Schomburgk's  rela- 
tions to  Sir  Robert  were  such  that  it  would  require  strong  evidence 
to  convince  an  impartial  judge  that  the  line  appearing  on  the 
Leipzig  map  received  no  inspiiation from  either  Robert  Schomburgk 
or  from  the  British  officials  who  permitted  Richard  to  copy  his 
brother's  map  at  the  Colonial  Office. 

Another  map,  which  may  be  termed  semi-official,  is  that  pub- 
lished in  the  Colonial  Office  List.  This  List  is  published  in  Lon- 
don in  serial  continuity,  and  states  on  its  title  page  that  it  is  com- 
piled from  official  records  by  permission  of  the  Secretary  of  State 
for  the  Colonies,  by  Mr.  John  Anderson,  an  official  of  the  Colonial 
Office.  The  edition  of  this  List  published  in  March,  1886,  as  also 
the  prior  editions,  give  Schomburgk's  north  and  south  line  of  1839 
as  the  western  boundary  of  British  Guiana  (Ven.  Atlas,  map  86). 
The  edition  published  in  December,  1886,  and  all  subsequent  editions, 
give  instead  the  Expanded  Schomburgk  Line  (Ven.  Atlas,  map  86). 
Taking  this  in  connection  with  all  that  has  gone  before,  is  it  too  much 
to  affirm  that  the  maps  of  this  Colonial  Office  List  must  have  had 
if  not  the  formal  approval,  at  least  the  quiet  sanction  of  the  British 
Government;  and  that  these  maps  are  to-day  evidence  of  what 
the  British  Government  claimed  in  and  prior  to  1886? 

In  the  Atlas  accompanying  the  Venezuelan  Case  are  reproduced 
still  other  maps  giving  the  Schomburgk  Line  of  1839.  They  are 
all  maps  for  which,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  either  Schom- 
burgk or  the  British  Government  must  be  held  to  be  ultimately 
responsible.  These  are:  the  map  printed  in  Parliamentary  Papers, 
1840,  Vol.  34  (Ven.  Atlas,  map  32);  the  map  in  Schomburgk's  De- 
scription of  British  Guiana;  London,  1840  (Ven.  Atlas,  map  83); 
Schomburgk's  map,  Leipzig,  IS4.I  (Ven.  Atlas,  map  84);  the  Schom- 
burgk map,  reproduced  from  original  in  Exposition  Universellede 
Paris,  1867,   Catalogue    des    produits    exposes    par    la    Guyane 


SCHOMBURGK  LINE.  151 

Anglaise,  London,  1867  (Ven.  Atlas,  map  89);  map  by  C.  Barring- 
ton  Brown,  London,  1876  (Ven.  Atlas,  map  90),  one  of  the 
surveyors  employed  by  the  British  Government  to  make  the 
geological  survey  of  the  Colony.  In  addition  there  are  scores  of 
others  which  it  is  not  worth  while  to  mention  here. 

To  sum  up:  in  1839  Schomburgk  proposed  to  the  British 
Government  to  survey  as  a  boundary  of  British  Guiana  the 
line  appearing  in  his  map  of  that  date;  the  British  Government 
approved  that  proposal,  authorized  that  survey,  and  declared  its 
intention  of  proposing  that  line  as  a  statement  of  the  British  claim; 
Schomburgk,  instead  of  surveying  that  line,  surveyed  another,  or 
rather  part  of  another,  line  which  goes  much  further  west, 
and  suggested  that  new  line  to  the  Government  as  a  desirable 
boundary;  the  British  Government  not  only  failed  to  approve 
Schomburgk's  new  proposals,  but  continued  for  forty-four  years 
to  adhere  to  the  original  Schomburgk  Line  of  1839.  During  that 
period  Schomburgk's  reports  and  his  Expanded  Line  were  kept 
secret,  and  every  British  publication,  whether  official,  semi-official, 
or  private,  proclaimed  as  the  western  boundary  of  British  Guiana 
the  original  Schomburgk  Line  of  1839.  In  1886  the  British  Gov- 
ernment published  the  Expanded  line  for  the  first  time,  declaring 
it  to  be  the  only  Schomburgk  Line  and  the  boundary  of  the 
Colony.  That  Government  thus  reversed  the  action  of  all  former 
British  administrations  for  forty-six  years,  and  comes  into  court 
to-day,  asking  this  Tribunal  to  stamp  its  approval  upon  such  a 
course  of  dealing. 


CHAPTER  V, 

THE  GEOGRAPHICAL  FEATURES  OF  THE  TERRITORY  IN 
DISPUTE  AS  BEARING  ON  THE  QUESTION  OF  TITLE. 

The  territory  in  dispute  comprises  a  considerable  portion  of  the 
land  lying  between  the  Essequibo,  on  the  east,  and  the  Caroni,  a 
tributary  of  the  Orinoco,  on  the  west. 

The  course  of  both  the  Essequibo  and  the  Caroni  is  nearly  due 
north;  that  of  the  Orinoco  is  nearly  east  and  west.  The  main 
tributaries  of  the  Essequibo  are  the  Cuyuni  and  the  Massaruni. 
The  course  of  these  rivers,  with  their  branches,  is  also  approxi- 
mately east  and  west.  As  a  consequence,  it  happens  that  the 
Cuyuni  River  System  practically  traverses  in  the  interior  the  en- 
tire territory  between  the  Essequibo  and  the  Caroni,  including 
the  whole  width  of  the  territory  in  dispute. 

The  territory  betw^een  the  Essequibo  and  the  Caroni  is 
bounded  on  the  north  by  the  Orinoco  and  by  the  sea.  To  the 
north  of  the  Cuyuni  valley,  which,  as  already  stated,  has  an  east- 
erly and  westerly  trend,  lies  a  range  of  mountains,  defined  on  the 
maps  with  considerable  clearness,  which  is  known  as  thelmataka 
Ridge  or  Imataka  Mountains.  This  ridge  runs  in  general  parallel 
with  the  Cuyuni  and  its  tributary  the  Curumo  in  a  northwest 
and  southeast  direction,  across  the  whole  territory  between  the 
Caroni  and  the  Essequibo.  Near  its  eastern  extremity  is  a  small 
spur  or  group  of  hills,  known  as  the  Blauwenberg  or  Blue  Moun- 
tains. The  range  is  sufficiently  defined  to  form  a  clear  division 
between  the  basin  of  the  interior  and  the  territory  watered  by  the 
rivers  which  run  north  into  the  Orinoco  and  the  sea. 

In  the  discussion  of  the  various  districts  in  controversy  in  this 
Argument  the  region  south  of  this  range  of  hills  is  designated  the 
Interior  Territory,  the  region  north  of  them  the  Coast  Territory. 

The  physical  features  of  the  Interior  Territory  had  a  marked 
influence  upon  its  history.     Its  extreme  eastern  border  extends 


154  GEOGRAPHICAL    FEATURES. 

close  up  to  the  fringe  of  settlements  on  the  Essequibo.  This  river 
runs  in  a  line  almost  due  north  for  a  distance  of  over  five  hundred 
miles.  Its  mouth  forms  a  large  estuary,  and  in  the  lower  part 
of  its  course  it  contains  many  islands.  The  rivers  Cuyuui  and 
Massaruni  empty  into  it  at  a  point  about  sixty  miles  from  the  sea. 
Just  before  reaching  the  Essequibo  the  two  rivers  unite. 

The  lower  Essequibo  is  a  large  navigable  river,  though  naviga- 
tion ceases  at  no  great  distance  above  the  mouth  of  the  united 
Cuyuni  and  Massaruni.  On  the  Cuyuni  and  Massaruni  naviga- 
tion is  also  brought  to  an  end  a  short  distance  above  the  mouths 
of  these  rivers  by  falls  or  rapids.  The  Cuyuni  is  over  300 
miles  long.  The  lowest  falls  are  about  twelve  miles  from  its 
mouth.  In  the  Mazaruni  the  lowest  falls  are  about  ten  miles  from 
its  mouth.  The  obstructions  to  navigation  in  the  falls  or  rapids 
constituted  a  physical  barrier,  a  natural  boundary,  beyond  which 
settlement  at  no  time  passed,  and  it  determined  ultimately  the 
development  of  the  colony  away  from  the  upper  waters  and  their 
tributaries. 

The  British  Counter-Case  dwells  at  great  length  (pp.  15-20) 
upon  the  character  of  the  falls  in  these  two  rivers,  with  a  view  to 
show  that  they  were  not  impassable.  It  objects  to  the  name 
"falls,"  although  that  designation  was  invariably  applied  to  them 
by  the  Dutch  for  more  than  a  century,  and  although  its  own 
Atlas  calls  them  "cataracts."  It  insists  that  they  are  not  falls 
but  rapids,  and  that  they  can  be  passed.  The  question  is  one  of 
material  importance,  for  the  falls  were  one  determining  feature  in 
the  history  of  the  Cuyuni.  As  to  the  character  of  the  obstruction, 
no  one  denies  that  it  was  possible  to  pass  it  by  taking  the  canoes 
overland,  and  sometimes  by  "shooting"  the  falls,  though  only  at 
great  risk.  This,  however,  is  not  navigation,  and  a  river  which, 
is  in  the  condition  described  is  not  a  navigable  river. 

Whether  the  obstructions  to  navigation  in  the  Cuyuni  are 
known  as  "  falls  "  or  "  rapids,"  and  whether  it  was  possible  in  some 
way  and  at  some  times  to  pass  them,  the  fact  remains  as  an  incon- 


GEOGRAPHICAL  FEATURES.  166 

ti'overtible  fact,  that  their  presence  was  effectual  in  determining 
the  limits  of  colonial  development.  Had  the  rivers  been  navigable 
highways,  which  they  were  not  in  any  sense,  they  would  undoubt- 
edly have  led  to  the  establishment  of  some  settlements  or  planta- 
tions above  the  point  where  settlements  and  plantations  absolutely 
stopped. 

The  early  plantations  of  the  Essequibo  colony  clustered  about 
the  point  where  the  union  of  the  Cuyuni  and  Mazaruni  with  the 
Essequibo  forms  a  small  inland  basin.  On  the  four  radiating 
arms  of  this  basin,  from  the  point  of  union  as  a  centre,  the  entire 
settlement  was  established  within  a  distance  of  twelve  miles 
from  the  central  point.  For  a  long  time  the  colony  was  nearly 
stationary,  and  when  about  1734  it  began  to  develop,  the  move- 
ment was  entirely  towards  the  mouth  of  the  Essequibo.  In  1740 
the  fort  was  removed  from  Kykoveral  to  Flag  Island,  and  from 
that  time  on  the  old  plantations  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  union 
of  the  three  rivers  were  almost  wholly  abandoned. 

It  was  well  known  that  the  land  beyond  the  falls  was  adapted 
for  cultivation,  but  at  no  time  wa3  there  any  movement  towards 
settlement  in  that  direction.  This  was  due  entirely  to  the  ob- 
struction of  the  falls.     Of  this  fact  there  is  abundant  evidence. 

The  engineer  Saincterre  reported  to  the  Company,  March  19, 
1722  (B.  C.  I,  252):  "The  ground  is  even  better  above  in  the 
Rivers  Essequibo,  Mazaruni  and  Cuyuni,  than  below;  but  because 
they  are  full  of  rocks,  falls,  and  islands,  and  much  danger  is  to  be 
feared  for  large  sugar  canoes,  this  is  the  I'eason  why  up  to  this 
time  the  Europeans  have  not  been  willing  to  establish  sugar 
plantations  there,"  showing  that  no  such  plantations  had  yet 
been  established. 

The  Court  of  Policy,  in  a  letter  to  the  West  India  Company, 
July  14,  1731  (B.  C.  II,  14)  states:  ''  The  great  number  of  rocks 
which  lie  in  these  two  rivers,  and  which  occasion  the  falls  by 
reason  of  the  strong  stream  rushing  over  them,  makes  these  rivers 
unnavigable  for  large  vessels,  wherefore  it  is  impossible  to  estab- 


156  GEOGRAPHICAL    FEATURES. 

lish  any  plantations  there,  although  the  soil  is  very  well  fitted 
for  it." 

In  1739  the  Commandeur  reported  (B.  C.  II,  30),  speaking  of 
the  prospecting  for  minerals  in  the  Ouyuni  above  the  falls: 

"  As  the  continuous  rainy  season  .  .  .  makes  the  road  [weg] 
above  the  falls  very  dangerous,  it  has  prevented  the  making  of  any  further 
discovery — assuming  that  anything  at  all  is  to  be  found  there." 

Hildebrandt,  the  Mining  Engineer,  reported  (V.  C.  II,  93)  in 
1741  that  he  "  came  to  a  great  fall  named  Tokeyne,  where  we  had 
great[er]  trouble  to  get  up  than  we  had  anywhere,  the  perpen- 
dicular height  of  the  above  named  fall  being  4^  fathoms  [27  feet]. 
If  I  had  not  had  the  luck  [to  meet]  six  Indians  who  showed  them- 
selves helpful  in  dragging  over  my  boat,  I  should  have  found  it 
impossible  to  get  up;  and  I  kept  these  Indians  by  me  still  after 
they  had  helped  me,  in  order  to  show  the  way  further  through 
the  many  islands  and  two  other  difficult  falls." 

And,  again,  in  the  following  year  (V.  0.  II,  94),  he 

"came  to  beneath  the  second  great  fall  and  saw  almost  no  chance  to  get 
up,  so  was  the  water  swollen,  which  in  my  former  journey  I  could  not  get 
through  ;  so  that  the  additional  Indians  were  very  opportune  for  me,  and 
it  was  dark  by  the  time  we  had  the  two  boats  up  above." 

Even  Schomburgk  gives  his  testimony  to  the  existence  of  these 
conditions  and  their  effect  upon  the  colony.  He  mentions  one 
fall  (B.  C.  VII,  28)  as  "  called  the  Canoe- wrecker,  in  consequence 
of  many  fatal  accidents  which  have  occurred  here."  Speaking  of 
the  Camaria,  one  of  the  lowest  group  of  falls  in  the  Cuyuni,  he 
said  (B.  C.  VII,  29): 

'' As  it  did  not  afford  any  poriage,  we  attempted  to  descend  it  in  our 
craft.  It  nearly  proved  our  destruction.  As  it  was,  the  craft  filled  with 
water,  and  it  was  only  the  presence  of  mind  of  some  of  our  crew  to  which, 
under  the  Almighty,  we  were  indebted  for  our  safety." 

At  the  next  fall,  "Ematubba,  generally  called  'the  Great 
Fall,' "  he  had  to  unload  and  haul  his  corials  overland. 


GEOGRAPHIC  AT,  FEATURES.  151 

His  general  conclusion  in  reference  to  the  Cuynni  is  thus 
stated  (B.  C.  VII,  30):  • 

"  But  the  difficulties  which  the  Cuyuni  presents  to  navigation,  and 
tliose  tremendous  falls  which  impede  the  river  in  the  firs/  day's  ascent,  will, 
I  fear,  prove  a  great  obstacle  to  making  the  fertility  of  its  banks  available 
to  the  Colony.  The  Amacura,  Barima  and  Waini,  are,  for  a  great  distance, 
free  of  such  impediments." 

Even  the  Indians  were  not  exempt  from  these  accidents.  In 
1778,  Director-General  Trotz  recorded  the  fact  (B.  C.  IV,  190) 
that  an  Indian  Owl  named  Taumaii,  in  descending  the  river, 
''  had  the  mischance  to  go  down  the  first  fall  with  his  vessel, 
whereby  all  his  goods  were  lost,"  and  that  a  friend  who  accom- 
panied him  was  drowned. 

A  word  of  comment  must  be  given  to  the  evidence  upon 
which  the  British  Counter-Case  contends  that  the  falls  so  de- 
scribed in  other  parts '  of  its  evidence  are  not  obstructions  to 
navigation.  It  relies  upon  an  affidavit  of  Mr.  McTurk,  Stipen- 
diary Magistrate  of  the  colony  of  British  Guiana,  and  of  all 
its  officials  the  most  zealous  promoter  of  extended  frontiers. 
The  examination  will  be  valuable  at  this  early  stage  of 
the  Argument  as  showing  the  value  of  Mr,  McTurk's  depo- 
sitions in  general,  a  subject  to  which  we  shall  have  occa- 
sion to  refer  more  than  once  at  a  later  stage.  Mr.  McTurk's 
affidavit  (B.  C.-C.  App.,  403-5)  was  made  June  14,  1898,  for  use 
in  this  arbitration.  He  undertakes  to  make  two  points:  First, 
that  the  falls  of  the  Cuyuni  are  not  very  difficult  or  dangerous; 
and,  second,  that  the  most  difficult  falls  are  not  in  the  lower, 
but  in  the  upper  part  of  the  river.  Unfortunately  for  Mr. 
McTurk,  the  evidence  annexed  to  the  British  Case  contains 
several  of  his  reports,  made  before  it  was  supposed  that  the 
boundary  question  would  be  submitted  to  arbitration,  and  these 
reports  contain  evidence  quite  at  variance  with  that  of  his  later 
deposition.  In  order  to  show  the  difference  between  Mr.  Mc- 
Turk reporting  the  facts  to  his  superior  officer  and  Mr.  McTurk 


158 


GEOGRAPHICAL    FEATURES. 


making  a  deposition  to  be    used   in   this   arbitration,    they  are 
printed  in  parallel  columns. 

(1.)  As  to  the  Difficulties  and  Dangers  of  Navigation. 

Report  of  Descent  of  Guyuni  1891. 
{B.  a   VI,  248-9). 

'*  On  the  14th  the  boat  went  twice 


Deposition  1898. 


"  The  falls  and  rapids  on  the 
Cuyuni,  Massaruni,  and  Essequibo, 
although  difficult  and  tedious  to 
pass,  offer  no  insuperable  difficulties 
to  navigation,  which  is  conclusively 
shown  by  the  number  of  boats  which 
annually  pass  up  and  down,  and  in 
those  cases  where  accidents  have 
occurred  it  has  been  on  account  of 
the  carelessness  or  incompetency  of 
those  in  command  of  the  boat." 


on  the  rocks,  the  first  time  splitting 
the  larboard  streak,  and  the  second 
time  pitching  me  out,  when  I  got  a 
number  of  bruises.  This  was 
through  no  fault  of  the  steersman, 
but  because  we  came  so  suddenly  on 
the  rocks  round  points  above  them. 
We  then  had  to  clear  a  road  across 
an  island  about  400  yards  long,  lay 
rollers,  unload,  and  haul  the  boat 
over.  This  occupied  nearly  half  a 
day.  At  12.30  p.  m.  we  started  for 
the  other  side. 

"  The  appearance  of  the  river  from 
the  lower  side  of  this  portage  was 
most  appalling;  as  far  as  the  view 
was  clear  the  river  was  a  seething 
mass  of  broken  water,  with  numer- 
ous whirlpools  and  pointed  rocks 
showing  between  the  waves.  We  all 
viewed  them  with  dread,  knowing 
we  had  to  pass  over  them  somehow. 
Placing  myself  at  the  highest  part  of 
the  lading  with  the  glasses,  I  directed 
the  steersman,  and  by  alternately 
running  and  lowering,  at  1  p.  m. 
came  out  into  clear  water,  finishing 
one  of  the  most  dangerous  passages 
through  falls  it  has  been  my  lot  to 
experience. 

"On  the  16th  January  we  had  to 
unload  and  haul  over  the  boat  twice 
owing  to  the  size  of  the  falls  swollen 


GEOGRArHICAL    FEATURES.  J 59 

by  the  rains,  and  again  once  more  on 
the  17th.  On  this  morning  the 
boat  was  flung  bodily  on  to  a  rock  by 
the  bursting  up  of  the  water,  the  up- 
rising of  the  accumulated  water  from 
below.  One  man,  who  was  standing 
up  at  the  time,  was  thrown  several 
feet  clear  of  the  boat,  and  was  driven 
down  the  fall,  but  clung  to  some 
bushes  below.  We  jumped  on  the 
rock,  and  at  the  next  uprising  of  the 
water  the  boat  swung  round  and 
floated  ofif;  one  man  not  jumping  in 
in  time  was  left  on  the  rock.  As 
soon  as  we  acquired  control  over  the 
boat,  we  picked  up  the  men  holding 
on  to  the  bushes,  and  went  as  near 
as  we  could  to  the  other  on  the  rock, 
about  40  yards  ofi',  as  we  could  get 
no  nearer ;  he  was  motioned  to  swim, 
and  I  stood  ready  with  a  rope  to 
throw  to  his  assistance;  he  jumped 
in  and  reached  the  boat  safely.  We 
arrived,  without  further  mishap,  at 
the  penal  settlement  at  10.30  a,  m." 

Report  January  23,  1890. 
{B.  a  VII,  325.) 

"9.  There  have  been  several  acci- 
dents during  the  year,  and  in  many 
cases  attended  with  the  loss  of  life. " 

Report  February  17,  1891. 
{B.  a  F//,  327.) 

"  As  in  last  year,  there  have  been 
several  accidents  on  the  rivers,  and  a 
deplorable  loss  of  life." 


160  GEOGRAPHICAL    FEATURES. 

Report  August  5,  1895. 
{B.  a  F//,  335.) 

"  The  steersman  ran  the  boat  into 
a  fall  dangerous  at  all  times,  but  es- 
pecially so  in  the  then  state  of  the 
river;  in  each  case  the  result  was  the 
same — a  lamentable  loss  of  life." 

Report  September  7,  1891. 
{B.  a   VI,  253  ) 

"If  it  is  decided  that  a  station  is 
to  be  put  up  at  the  mouth  of  the 
Uruan,  the  matter  must  be  taken  in 
hand  while  the  dry  weather  lasts,  as 
it  is  not  only  a  very  laborious  but 
dangerous  undertaking  to  ascend  the 
Cuyuni  at  any  other  time." 

(2.)  As  to  the  comparative  extent  of  obstructions  in  the  upper  and 

lower  Cuyuni. 

The  proposition  here  is  thus  stated  by  the  British  Counter-Case 
(p.  16),  on  the  strength  of  Mr.  McTurk's  deposition: 

"  In  other  words,  the  obstacles  to  navigation  on  the  Cuyuni  below  the 
Uruan  are  distributed  along  the  whole  course,  and  are  not,  as  tlie  Vene- 
zuelan Case  suggests,  confined  to  the  lower  part,  where  indeed  they  are  less 
formidable  than  further  up." 

The  sole  authority  cited  for  this  statement  is  Mr.  McTurk's 
deposition.  In  the  columns  following  this  deposition  is  compared 
with  his  previous  reports: 

Deposition  1898.  Report  February  16,  1889. 

(i?.  C-C.  App.,  403.)  (^.  a    VII,  322.) 

"The    suggestion   in   the   Vene-  "  The  lower  part  of  the  Cuyuni  is 

zuelan  Case  that  the  falls  and  rapids  very  much  obstructed  by  falls,  which 

in  the  Cuyuni  render  it  almost  im-  though  not  so  numerous  as  those  on 

possible   to   traverse  from  the  Esse-  the  Mazaruni,  are  larger  and  tortuous 

quibo  end,  and  that  these  rapids  and  in  their  course.     The  latter  circum- 

falls    constitute    a    natural    barrier  stance  adds  to  the  difficulty  and  dan- 

against  any  one  ascending  the  river  ger  of  getting  over  them.     Beyond 


GEOGRAPHICAL    FEATURKS.  161 

from    its   mouth  while   leaving  the  the  falls  at  Womopoh  the  river  is 

upper  part  of  the  river  above  these  clearer,    the   falls   being  small   and 

falls  easy  to  traverse,  is  entirely  er-  considerable  distances  apart." 

roneous.     As  a  matter  of  fact,  the 

falls  and  rapids  occur  throughout  the 

whole  distance  between  the  mouth  of  lleimrt  January  20,  18D1. 

the  Cuyuni  and  the  Uruan,  and  it  is  {B.  C.   VI,  247.) 

not  correct  to  suppose  that  the  most  ''On    the    1st  January   we  came 

difficult  falls  are  those  nearest  its  out  from  among  the  islands  into  the 

moutii."  open  river  above  Kaiuiiniu  falls." 

Kanaima  is  about  half  way  between  Uruan  and  the  lowest  fall 
ill  the  Cuyuni.  Womopoh  is  two  days  below  Kanaima.  In  the 
report  last  cited  Mr.  McTurk  mentions  the  passage  on  his  way  up 
of  twenty-one  falls  before  reaching  "  the  open  river  above  Kanaima 
falls."  He  does  not  mention  one  between  there  and  Uruan,  a 
distance  of  over  one  hundred  miles.  On  his  way  down  he  does 
not  mention  a  fall  above  Kanaima,  and  his  experience  below  that 
point  is  quoted  in  the  first  series  of  parallel  columns. 

On  Map  1  of  the  British  Atlas  sixteen  cataracts,  poi-tages, 
rapids,  and  ''great  cataracts,"  are  mentioned  by  name  below 
Kanaima,  while  only  two  of  this  class  of  obstructions  are  men- 
tioned above. 

If  McTurk's  deposition  is  not  sufficiently  contradicted  by  Mc- 
Turk's  reports,  the  following  statements  of  British  officials  are  a 
conclusive  answer. 

Hilhouse,  who  had  been  for  many  years  in  the  colony,  and 
had  held  a  high  Colonial  office  in  connection  with  the  Indians, 
ascended  the  Cuyuni  in  1837,  and  stated  that  he  ascended  fully  77 
feet  in  the  first  day  (V.  C,  p.  29,  note).     He  added: 

''It  is  evident  that  colonization  can  never  be  attempted  on  this  river  : 
the  first  day's  journal  determines  that." 

Mr.  Perkins,  the  Government  Surveyor  of  British  Guiana,  said 

in  1893  of  the  Cuyuni  (V.  C,  p.  30): 

"It  has  long  been  known  as  amongst  the  most  dangerous,  if  nut  Me 
most  dangerous,  of  all  the  larger  rivers  of  British  Guiana,  and  there  arc 


ir»2  GEOGRAPHICAL    FEATURES. 

times  when  the  height  of  its  waters,  either  above  or  below  a  certain  point, 
gives  it  every  right  to  claim  this  unenviable  notoriety.  My  first  experience 
was  a  highly  unpleasant  one  in  1877.  ...  In  coming  down  stream 
our  boat  capsized  at  the  Accaio — the  lowest  fall  in  the  river.— wiiere  one 
man  was  drowned  and  everything  was  lost." 

An  important  point  in  the  phraseology  of  the  Dutch  records  is 
here  to  be  noted.  It  has  been  said  that  the  plantations  of  the 
colony  of  Essequibo  proper,  during  the  first  century  of  its  exist- 
ence, extended  around  the  water  basin  formed  by  the  junction  of 
the  three  rivers,  with  their  four  arms,  namely,  those  of  the  Esse- 
quibo, the  Massaruui  and  the  Cuyuni  as  far  as  the  obstructions  of 
the  falls  and  on  the  lower  Essequibo  to  an  undefined  distance  in 
the  direction  of  the  sea.  The  general  designation  used  by  the 
Dutch  authorities  in  referring  to  the  plantations  on  the  Cuyuni 
and  Massaruni  in  this  circle  around  the  water  basin  and  below  the 
falls  was  "in  Cuyuni,"  or  "in  Massaruni."  A  plantation  "in 
Cuyuni"  meant  a  plantation  between  the  (]luyuni  falls  and  the 
mouth  of  the  river.  A  plantation  "in  Massaruni"  meant  a 
plantation  between  the  Massaruni  falls  and  the  mouth  of  the 
river.  Later,  when  the  trend  of  the  settlements  in  Essequibo 
was  toward  the  river  mouth,  and  all  but  a  few  of  the  upper  plan- 
tations were  abandoned,  the  fort  being  moved  30  miles  lower 
down,  it  became  customary  to  speak  of  these  localities  below  the 
falls  as  "up  in  Cuyuni,"  or  "  up  in  Massaruni." 

This  phraseology  is  important,  in  view  of  the  loose  manner  in 
which  the  phrases  "in  Cuyuni"  and  "in  Massaruni"  are  used  in 
the  British  Case.  Their  use  there  would  seem  to  imply  that  they 
had  reference  in  the  Dutch  documents  to  the  upper  waters  of  the 
two  rivers.  Such  is  not  the  fact.  The  expressions  were  used 
habitually  in  reference  to  the  settlements  about  the  river  mouth, 
and  those  only. 

Thus  the  British  Case  (p.  15)  says: 

"The  timber  in  the  forests  of  Massaruni, Cuyuni  and  Waini  was  granted 
out  by  the  Government  for  felling." 


GEOGRAPHICAL    FEATURES.  163 

No  timber  grant  was  ever  made  in  Massaruni  or  Cuyuni  be- 
yond the  falls. 

Even  in  1880,  im  Thurn  says  (V.  C,  vol.  iii,  p.  407): 

"It  is  at  present  impossible  to  cut  timber  profitably  beyond  the 
cataracts  [on  the  various  rivers],  owing  to  the  difficulty  of  carrying  it  to 
market." 

Again  (p.  29)  the  Commaudeur  is  reported  as  stating  that  "  ho 
has 'again  begun  to  make  here  a  new  plantation,  in  the  River 
Cuyuni  above  the  fort.' " 

Here  the  reference  is  to  the  same  jwrtion  of  the  river  below  the 
falls. 

The  British  Case  states  (p.  35)  that  a  settlement  of  "  a  novel 
kind  was  established  in  an  island  in  the  Cuyuni,"  referring  to  the 
Creole  settlement.     This,  again,  was  below  the  falls. 

It  also  speaks  (p.  36)  of  several  grants  of  land  "  in  Massa- 
runi "  and  "  in  Cuyuni,"  possibly  half  a  dozen.  There  never  was  a 
grant  of  land  by  the  Dutch  above  the  falls  of  either  the  Cuyuni  or 
the  Massaruni. 

The  existence  of  the  falls  in  the  Cuyuni  and  Massaiuni  was 
the  determining  factor  in  the  history  of  the  river- valleys. 

The  Eastern  border  of  the  interior  territory  where  it  approaches 
the  Essequibo,  is  rugged  and  at  the  period  in  question  was  covered 
with  a  dense  forest.  The  rivers  which  would  otherwise  have  con- 
stituted natural  highways  of  travel  were  closed  to  navigation. 
The  difficulties  of  access  on  this  side  were  such  as  to  determine  the 
relations  of  the  Dutch  colony  of  Essequibo  to  this  territory.  No 
settlement  ever  penetrated  beyond  the  natural  boundary  made  by 
the  falls.  No  body  of  soldiers  from  the  garrison  ever  passed  this 
boundary.  Neither  the  Governor,  the  Secretary,  the  commandant 
of  the  garrison,  or  any  other  officer,  except  the  postholder,  ever 
set  foot  in  it.  The  only  other  Dutchmen  who  ever  passed  the  falls 
from  Essequibo  were  isolated  individuals,  and  these  only  on  oc- 
casional visits.   The  only  persons  connected  with  the  Dutch  colony 


164  GEOGRAPHICAL    FEATURES. 

that  are  ever  meutioned  as  passing  this  barrier  are  the  Com- 
pany's old  negro  traders,  the  Outlier,  who  was  for  a  short  time 
in  the  Cuyuni,  the  two  Byliers  who  were  employed  at  the  same 
post,  the  Outrunners,  who  went  to  trade  with  the  Indians,  and 
occasional  individuals  trading  on  their  own  account. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  western  side  of  the  interior  district, 
which  immediately  adjoined  the  Orinoco,  was  open  country,  sef>- 
arated  from  the  valley  of  that  river  only  by  low  hills,  which  were 
freely  passed  and  repassed  by  the  Spaniards  from  the  provinces  of 
Cumana  and  Barinas,  across  the  river,  and  from  the  capital  ot 
Santo  Thome,  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  river  itself.  This  open 
country  consisted  of  plains,  prairies  or  savannas,  as  they  were 
called,  admirably  adapted  for  the  pasturage  of  cattle.  The  exist- 
ence of  these  immense  savannas  determined  from  the  beginning 
the  great  product  of  Spanish  Guiana,  namely,  cattle,  horses  and 
hides;  and  it  w^as  over  these  savannas  that  the  Spaniards  passed 
to  the  Cuyuni. 

The  Spaniards,  descending  the  slopes  of  the  low  hills  that 
bordered  the  Orinoco  valley,  established  themselves  and  their 
herds  in  the  immense  district  watered  by  the  tributaries  of  the 
Cuyuni.  Their  missionary  efforts  among  the  Indians,  which  had 
begun  in  the  seventeenth  century  under  the  royal  direction,  in  the 
early  part  of  the  eighteenth  resulted  in  the  planting  of  settle- 
ments, of  which  the  first,  that  of  Suay,  commonly  known  as 
Purisima  Concepcion,  was  in  the  immediate  neighborhood  of 
Santo  Thome,  and  became  the  residence  of  the  Prefect  of  tlie 
Missions.  During  the  century  a  great  number  of  these  settlements 
were  established,  the  earliest  of  them  not  far  to  the  southward  of 
Suay,  until  they  filled  a  vast  extent  of  territory.  Some  of  these 
were  towns  with  a  mixed  population  of  Indians  and  Spaniards, 
such  as  Upata  and  Guasipati;  some  of  them  were  enormous  cattle 
farms,  such  as  Divina  Pastora;  some  of  them  were  settlements  of 
Indians  exclusively,  in  charge  of   missionaries,  where  the  Indians 


GEOGRAPHICAL    FEATURES.  165 

erected  houses,  dwelt  and  labored  and,  abandoning  their  wander- 
ing life,  were  taught  the  cultivation  of  the  soil  and  the  practice  of 
useful  arts.  At  these  settlements  were  soldiers  from  the  Spanish 
garrison  of  Guayana,  and  at  one  of  them,  that  opposite  the  mouth 
of  the  Curumo,  on  the  south  bank  of  the  Cuyuni,  there  was  a  fort 
with  a  garrison  of  its  own. 

That  the  accessibility  of  this  territory  from  the  west  necessarily 
resulted  from  the  character  of  the  country  is  shown  by  the  evi- 
dence. 

The  English  engineer  Barry,  who  visited  the  gold  mines  near 
Guacipati,  by  the  usual  route  from  the  Orinoco,  describes  the 
character  of  this  region  (V.  C,  p.  32),  where  the  traveler 
"emerges  on  open  tracts  of  moderate  extent  not  bare,  but  diversi- 
fied by  clumps  of  trees  dotted  about,  while  the  rolling  ground  re- 
minds him  of  the  most  beautiful  parts  of  English  country  scenery. 
Paik,  as  it  were,  succeeds  park,  till  he  is  at  last  fairly  puzzled 
where  to  select  to  encamp,  among  so  much  contented  and  rival 
loveliness,  and  here,  at  a  nominal  rent,  the  cattle  breeder  may 
come  and  establish  himself,  with  the  certainty  of  realizing  thirty 
per  cent,  per  annum  on  his  outlay." 

In  another  place,  he  describes  the  country  as  "  vast  undulating 
plains  of  waving  grass,  dotted  at  intervals  with  clumps  of  splendid 
trees.  .  .  .  Occasionally  a  thin  belt  of  forest  marked  the 
course  of  a  stream." 

The  British  Counter-Case  relies  on  Mr.  McTurk's  deposition 
(B.  C.-C.  App.,  403)  to  dispute  the  facility  of  access  to  the  Cuyuni 
valley  from  the  Orinoco.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  its  accessibility  is 
proved,  though  unintentionally,  by  Mr.  McTurk's  statement. 

While  he  says: 

"  These  savannahs  do  not  touch  the  Upper  Cuyuni," 

he  adds  that  it  is  only 

'*  a  day's  journey  on  mules  to  the  edge  of  the  savannah,  or  about  30 
miles." 


Ififi  GEOGRAPHICAL    FEATURES. 

One  could  desire  no  better  evidence  of  facility  of  access  than 
this.  The  distance  from  Santo  Thome  to  the  Cuyuni  at  Uruan  is 
150  miles,  of  which  120  is  the  "  open  park  "  described  by  BaiTy, 
and  the  remaining  30  is  traversed  on  mules  through  the  forest  in 
one  day. 

For  a  hundred  miles  further  below  Uruan  the  Cuyuni  is  "  the 
open  river  above  Kanaima  falls  "  described  by  McTurk. 

It  is  this  point  to  which  particular  attention  is  directed  here, 
namely,  the  accessibility  of  the  region  from  the  west,  not  only  to 
the  Cuyuni,  but  along  the  Cuyuni  valley,  as  contrasted  with  its 
inaccessibility  from  the  east.  The  district  was  well  w^atered  by 
the  tributaries  of  the  Cuyuni.  But  such  was  the  character  of  the 
land  that  it  was  unnecessary  to  use  the  streams  for  purposes  of 
transit.  In  this  whole  territory  transit  was  easily  effected  by 
land. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  which  were  part  of  the  physical  geog- 
raphy of  the  country,  it  is  not  surprising  that,  while  the  interior 
territory  was  the  subject  neither  of  settlement  nor  of  control  by 
the  Dutch  from  its  eastern  side,  it  was  subject  throughout  the 
whole  period  to  very  extensive  settlement  and  control  by  the 
Spanish  from  its  western  side.  As  to  the  Spanish  settlements 
themselves,  it  is  enough  to  say  that  by  the  close  of  the  century 
they  numbered  upwards  of  thirty;  that  their  herds  of  cattle  num- 
bered two  hundred  thousand,  and  that  the  population  of  Indians 
living  directly  under  the  supervision  of  those  in  charge  of  the 
settlements  numbered  upwards  of  twenty  thousand. 

As  to  control,  while  no  Dutch  official,  except  possibly  the  Post- 
holder,  ever  set  foot  in  the  territory,  it  was  repeatedly  visited  and 
patrolled  by  Spanish  officials  in  command  of  detachments  of  men 
from  the  Spanish  garrison.  These  will  be  mote  fully  spoken  of 
when  we  come  to  discuss  the  subject  of  control. 

Attention  is  here  directed  not  only  to  the  point  that  the  falls 
of  the  Cuyuni  and  Massaruni  make  a  natural  boundary  for  the 
colony,  but  that   the  ridge  through   which  they  break  in  their 


GEOGRAPHICAL  FEATURES.  167 

descent  indicates  a  natural  line  of  geographical  demarcation  for 
the  district  beyond.  The  ^act  of  this  "break"  in  the  mountains 
is  stated  in  the  Venezuelan  case  (p,  29),  and  emphatically  denied 
in  the  British  Counter  Case  (p.  16).  Yet  it  rests  upon  no  less  an 
authority  than  Schomburgk  who,  whatever  may  have  been  his 
ignorance  of  public  law,  must  at  least  be  admitted  by  Great 
Britain  to  have  been  a  geographer.  He  refers  to  his  "descent  of 
the  third  series  of  falls,  caused  by  a  small  range  of  mountains, 
through  which  the  river  has  broken  itself  a  passage."  (B.  C,  VII, 
29).  The  river  falls  200  feet  in  thirty  or  forty  miles,  and  it  is  this 
range  through  which  it  breaks  that  forms  the  eastern  boundary 
of  the  Interior  Territory. 

This  district  has  been  spoken  of  in  the  Venezuelan  Case 
as  "  the  Cuyuni-Mazaruni  Basin,"  a  term  to  which  the  British 
Case  takes  exception.  It  cannot  be  denied,  however,  that 
its  character  as  a  basin  is  distinctly  marked.  Starting  about 
twenty  miles  from  the  Orinoco,  at  the  western  end  of  the 
Imataka  Ridge,  which  crosses  the  territory  in  dispute  from 
northwest  to  southeast,  the  line  of  demarcation  turns  sharply  to 
the  southward,  midway  between  the  fifty -ninth  meridian  and  the 
Essequibo,  and  follows  the  range  of  mountains  through  which  the 
Cuyuni  and  Massaruni  break  at  the  falls;  thence  passing  up 
the  latter  river  it  crosses  over  by  the  watershed  separating  the 
tributaries  of  the  Amazon  from  the  rivers  of  the  north,  and  finds 
its  way  back  to  the  point  of  departure  by  the  mountains  which 
border  the  Caroni  on  the  east.  That  there  are  in  the  interior  of 
this  country  small  mountainous  areas  is  undoubted;  but  these  lie 
to  the  south  of  the  Massaruni,  where  they  form  isolated  points  of 
elevation,  and  do  not  affect  the  general  character  of  a  single  geo- 
graphical district.  That  this  district  was  penetrated  by  the 
Spaniards  and  possession  taken  of  it  at  an  early  date,  long  in  fact 
before  the  Dutch  were  ever  heard  of  in  the  country,  has  been  al- 
ready shown;  in  fact,  the  Spaniards  could  not  go  twenty  miles 
south  of  Guayana  Vieja,  the  second  site  of  Santo  Thome,  without 


m 


168  GEOGRAPHICAL  FEATURES. 

penetrating  it.  According  to  the  Venezuelan  Case  (p.  32),  the 
usual  length  of  the  journey  from  the  mouth  of  the  Caroni  to 
Guacipati,  more  than  half  way  to  the  Cuyuni,  was  but  three  days 
on  horseback;  and  the  country  was  as  accessible  in  the  time  of 
Berrio  and  Vera  as  it  was  when  Barry  made  the  journey. 

The  British  Uruan  police  station,  according  to  the  authorities 
cited  (V,  C,  p.  31),  can  only  be  reached  by  a  "  very  hazardous  and 
long  journey  of  forty  or  fifty  days,"  and  it  costs  the  Government 
"an  immense  annual  sum  to  maintain  their  small  number  of  police 
at  Yuruan  on  salt  and  tinned  provisions  (sent  all  the  way  from 
.  .  .  the  Essequibo,  in  paddled  boats);"  while,  "within  200 
yards  on  the  other  bank  of  Kuyuni  is  the  Venezuelan  outpost, 
supplied  with  all  kinds  of  fresh  food  from  their  cattle  farms  and 
plantations,"  and  "in  direct  communication  with  their  capital  by 
road  and  wire." 

The  claim  made  by  the  the  Dutch  to  this  region  was  a  claim  to 
"all  the  branches  and  tributaries  which  flow  into  it  [the  Esse- 
quibo], and  especially  of  the  northernmost  arm  of  the  river 
named  Cuyuni"  (V.  C.  II,  134).  It  was,  therefore,  a  claim 
over  the  vast  territory  covered  by  the  mission  settlements  up  to 
within  twenty  miles  of  the  Orinoco.  It  was  based  on  the  possession 
of  settlements  which  were  wholly  below  the  falls.  In  other  words, 
it  was  a  claim  to  extend  as  against  a  prior  holder,  whose  prior 
title  was  recognized,  a  posession  of  a  dozen  miles  of  the  course  of 
the  river  to  the  whole  extent  of  the  territory  watered  by  that 
river,  three  hundred  miles  in  length,  to  say  nothing  of  its  tribu- 
taries. 

The  principle  upon  which,  apart  from  any  question  of 
prior  titles  and  adverse  holding,  title  to  such  a  region  as  the 
Cuyuni  basin  depends  is  the  principle  of  natural  outlets.  The 
only  reason  why  the  possession  of  those  at  the  river  mouth  is  held 
to  carry  with  it  a  possession  of  the  territory  above  is,  as  stated  by 
Twiss  (Oregon  Question,  p.  247),  "because  their  settlements  bar 
the  approach  to  the  interior  country,  and  other  nations  can  have 


GEOGRAPHICAL  FEATURES.  169 

no  right  of  way  across  the  settlements  of  independent  nations." 
So  Phillimore  (Int.  Law,  §288):  "The  right  of  dominion  would 
extend  from  the  portion  of  the  coast  actually  and  duly  occupied, 
inland  so  far  as  the  country  was  uninhabited,  and  so  far  as  it 
might  be  considered  to  have  the  occupied  seaboard  for  its  natural 
outlet  to  other  nations."  Where  is  the  natural  outlet  of  the 
Cuyuni  valley?  and  where  is  its  natural  barrier?  This  question  is 
one  of  geography,  and  its  answer  lies  in  the  wall  which  nature 
has  erected  on  the  east  and  in  the  great  stretch  of  gently  sloping 
prairies  and  savannas  on  the  west. 

In  view  of  the  above  facts,  it  is  well  that  the  British  forbear 
to  press  their  "extreme  claim,"  which  includes  the  whole  valley 
of  the  mission  settlements.  As  an  alternative  proposition,  they 
fall  back  on  the  Schomburgk  line,  which  makes  the  upper  Cuyuni 
the  boundary  from  the  Acarabisi  to  its  source.  As  far  as  natural 
frontiers  are  concerned,  this  line  is  no  better  than  the  other.  It  is 
not  only  the  accessibility  of  the  mission  valley  from  the  Orinoco 
upon  which  we  have  dwelt,  but  the  accessibility  of  the  Cuyuni 
district  through  the  mission  valley  to  the  Orinoco.  The  theory 
that  the  Cuyuni  here  makes  a  natural  boundary  is  untenable.  As 
is  well  said  by  F.  de  Martens  (Int.  I^aw,  pp.  456-7): 

"  Correctly  speaking,  rivers  have  never  formed  natural  obstacles  be- 
tween nations.  On  the  contrary,  the  masses  of  population  in  the  basins  of 
the  principal  streams  show  that  they  served  rather  to  draw  people  together, 
even  in  former  times.  This  is  still  more  true  of  modern  times.  Streams 
that  traverse  many  States  are,  in  every  sense  of  the  word,  arteries  of  inter- 
national commnnication.  It  may  be  said,  then,  of  water-courses  that  serve 
as  frontiers:  First,  natnre  herself  has  predestined  them  to  unite  rather 
than  separate  States;  second,  the  right  to  navigate  them,  guaranteed  by 
treaties,  results,  moreover,  very  naturally,  in  some  difficulty  in  determining 
the  territorial  jurisdiction  over  the  water-course  by  the  countries  so 
bounded  ;  third,  to  establish  this  line  of  demarcation,  it  is  indispensable 
that  the  States  having  such  boundaries  should  arrive  at  a  complete  under- 
standing. 

"  The  preceding  fully  demonstrates  that,  in  reality,  a  water-course  can 
only  serve  as  an  artificial  and  conventional  boundary,  but  in  no  sense  as  a 


170  GEOGRAPHICAL  FEATUKE8. 

natural  one.     As  to  the  strategic  importance  of  streams  and  rivers,  that  is 
incontestable." 

The  (^oast  Territory,  between  the  Orinoco  and  the  Moruca, 
while  its  physical  features  seem  at  the  first  glance  to  be  in  direct 
contrast  with  those  of  the  interior,  was  similar  in  one  essential 
particular,  that  the  natural  access  to  the  territory  was  from  the 
west  and  not  from  the  east.  The  territory  is  separated  from  the 
district  which  has  just  been  discussed  by  the  ridge  of  hills  known 
as  the  Imataka  Ridge,  running  north-west  and  south-east  from 
the  Caroni  to  the  Orinoco, 

Of  the  rivers  in  this  district  four  of  the  principal  streams,  the 
Imataka,  the  Aguirre,  the  Amakura,  and  the  Barima,  empty  into 
the  Orinoco,  and  one,  the  Waini,  into  the  ocean. 

The  further  fact  to  be  noticed  is  that  the  rivers  in  this  district 
all  flowed  to  the  west.  In  the  Interior  district  the  couise  of  the 
rivers  was  to  the  east.  In  the  interior,  however,  the  rivers  were 
not  navigable  from  their  mouths,  being  virtually  closed  a  few 
miles  above  the  mouth  by  impassable  rocks  and  rapids.  In  the 
coast  territory  no  such  obstructions  to  navigation  existed. 

Another  difference  between  these  rivers  and  the  rivers  of  the 
interior  lay  in  this,  that  the  rivers  of  the  interior,  running  east, 
took  their  rise  in  the  extreme  western  part  of  the  territory  in  the 
neighborhood  of  the  Orinoco;  while  the  rivers  of  the  coast,  run- 
ning west,  did  not,  on  account  of  the  curvature  of  their  course, 
take  their  rise  in  the  eastern  part  of  the  territory  near  the  Esse- 
quibo.  Hence,  although  the  interior  rivers  were  accessible  through 
their  headwaters  to  the  Spaniards,  the  coast  rivers  were  not  in  the 
same  way  accessible  to  the  Dutch.  The  source  of  most  of  the  coast 
rivers,  in  fact,  was  much  nearer  the  Orinoco  than  the  Essequibo, 
while  that  of  the  others  was  close  to  the  district  in  which  lay  the 
outermost  mission  settlements  of  Spain.  The  principal  rivers  of 
the  interior,  the  Ciiriimo  and  Yuruari,  with  their  continuation  in 
the  Cuyuni,  extended  through  the  whole  territory,  beginning  at  a 
point  less  than  forty  miles  from  the  Orinoco  and  three  hundred 


GEOGRAPHICAL    FEATURES.  Itl 

miles  from  the  Essequibo.  The  rivers  of  the  coast  territory,  run- 
ning first  north- east  and  then  north-west,  never  approached  the 
Essequibo  at  all.  So  that  in  both  regions  the  rivers  were  alike  in- 
accessible from  the  east  and  accessible  from  the  west. 

The  merest  inspection  of  the  map  shows  that  all  the  rivers  of 
the  coast  district  are  a  part  of  the  same  river  system.  They  rise 
in  the  same  range  of  hills,  they  follow  the  same  line  of  curva- 
ture in  their  course,  and  they  empty  into  the  stream  of  the  Ori- 
noco. They  thus  form  four  concentric  water  courses,  the  line  of 
curvature  merely  expanding  from  the  innermost  arc  of  the  Ima- 
taka  to  the  outermost  of  the  Barima.  The  Waini  belongs  to  the 
same  system,  but  the  sweep  of  its  curve  reaches  the  coast  east 
of  the  Orinoco,  and  at  this  point  it  has  found  its  way  to  the 
sea. 

Singularly  enough,  however,  the  Waini,  a  short  distance  be- 
fore it  reaches  the  sea,  is  connected  with  the  Barima  by  a  deep 
navigable  channel  only  a  few  miles  in  length,  a  channel  through 
which  the  tide  ebbs  and  flows  and  which  at  all  times  affords  a 
passage  for  large  ships.  This  is  the  celebrated  Moia  Channel  or 
Mora  Passage,  and  its  existence,  by  rendering  the  Waini  as  acces- 
sible from  the  Orinoco  as  the  Barima  itself,  and  by  subjecting  it  to 
the  same  influences  of  tides  and  currents,  brings  the  Waini 
directly  into  the  Orinoco  system 

It  is  also  to  be  noticed,  with  regard  to  these  tributaries  of  the 
Orinoco,  that  none  of  them  are  obstructed  to  the  slightest  degree 
by  falls  or  rapids  except  in  their  upper  reaches.  Schomburgk  (B.  C. 
VII,  12)  describes  the  Barima  as  700  feet  wide,  with  a  depth  of 
I  18  to  24  feet,  and  he  says  {Id.^  13):  "  A  finer  river  for  steamers 
could  not  be  desired."  All  of  them  are  distinctly  navigable  rivers. 
In  fact,  their  navigability  is  the  one  physical  fact  that  is  of 
cruical  importance  in  the  history  of  this  region,  just  as  the  im 
passable  character  of  the  Cuyuni  and  Massaruni,  due  to  the 
obstruction  of  the  falls,  is  the  crucial  physical  fact  in  the  history 
of  the  interior  district.     So  far  as  physical  conditions  were  con- 


1T2  GEOGRAPHICAL    FEATURES. 

cerned,  the  navigability  of  these  tributaries  of  the  Orinoco  deter- 
mined the  history  of  the  coast  district  for  two  centuries.  In  the 
same  way,  with  reference  to  physical  conditions,  the  non- naviga- 
bility of  the  Cnyuni  and  Massaruni  determined  during  the  same 
peiiod  the  history  of  the  interior  district.  The  two  facts,  taken 
together,  afiford  a  perfect  explanation  of  the  fact  that,  apart  from 
political  considerations,  the  river  system  in  the  Interior  Territory 
was  destined  to  be  controlled  from  its  headwaters,  and  the  river 
system  in  the  Coast  Territory  from  its  point  of  discharge. 

The  natural  gateway  to  the  Interior  Territory  was  from  the 
headwaters  of  the  river,  while  the  natural  gateway  to  the  Coast 
Territory  was  from  the  lower  waters  of  the  river;  but  in  both 
cases  it  was  from  the  west. 

Another  noticeable  fact  in  connection  with  the  coast  territory 
is  to  be  found  in  the  "zYa6o5."  These  are  shallow  passages 
or  ditches  through  the  savanna,  and  connect  at  different  points 
the  tributary  creeks  of  the  large  rivers.  They  are  only  useful  for 
navigation  by  canoes  and  other  small  boats.  They  are  kept 
open  more  or  less  by  artificial  means,  and  during  a  considerable 
part  of  the  year  cannot  be  used  at  all.  Most  of  these,  such 
as  the  itabo  called  Morebo,  which  connects  the  tributary 
creeks  of  the  Barima  with  those  of  the  Waini  in  the  interior, 
and  a  similar  chain  of  passages  between  the  Aruka  and  Ama- 
kuru,  have  no  special  significance.  By  means  of  these  creeks 
and  bayous,  it  was  often,  though  not  always,  possible  to  make 
a  short  cut  between  the  upper  waters  of  the  rivei*s  of  the 
coast  territory,  only,  however,  in  boats  of  the  lightest  draught. 

There  was  one  itabo,  however,  which  crossed  the  savanna  be- 
tween the  Moruka  and  a  system  of  creeks  called  the  Biara  and 
Assacatta,  which  emptied  into  the  Baramani,  which  in  turn 
emptied  into  the  VVairu.  This  itabo  formed  the  only  natural  con- 
nection between  the  Moruka  and  the  west.  Great  rehance  is, 
therefore,  placed  upon  it  by  the  British  Case  as  showing  a  natural 
means  of  access  to  the  territory  commonly  known  as  Baiima  from 


GEOGRAPHICAL  PEATUKES.  173 

the  Essequibo,  It  was,  however,  a  very  uncertain  reliance.  The 
savanna  was  about  six  miles  in  width,  and  this  was  the  only  pas- 
sage through  it.  Moreover,  it  did  not  connect  with  the  Essequibo. 
From  that  liver  it  was  necessary  first  to  go  by  sea  to  the  mouth 
of  the  Moruka,  thence  proceeding  up  that  stream,  and  finally  to 
pass  through  the  itabo,  when  the  itabo  was  passable.  Even  from 
Pomeroon,  it  was  usual  to  go  to  the  mouth  of  the  river  and  pass 
by  sea  to  the  mouth  of  the  Moruka  in  order  to  get  through;  and 
from  Essequibo  in  the  Dutch  period  it.  was  customary  to  go  round 
Cape  Nassau  for  the  purpose.  The  passage  through  the  itabo 
seems  to  have  been  peculiarly  liable  to  interruption.  It  necessi- 
tated, when  coming  from  Essequibo,  a  voyage  partly  by  sea,  and 
it  was  the  only  means  of  access  into  the  district.  On  the  other 
side,  however,  any  one  could  start  from  the  Orinoco  in  a  vessel 
of  almost  any  size  and  range  freely  through  the  whole  district  as 
far  as  the  Moruka  itabo  without  going  outside  at  all. 

There  is  abundant  evidence,  both  Dutch  and  British,  as  to  the 
accessibility  of  the  Coast  Territory  on  the  west  from  the  Orinoco, 
and  its  inaccessibility  on  the  east  from  the  Essequibo.  Thus,  in 
1889,  Crichton,  the  British  Superintendent  of  Rivers  and  Creeks, 
making  his  first  journey  to  this  territory  from  Pomeroon, 
"  learned  also  that  I  could  not  proceed  through  the  savannah, 
as  it  was  almost  dry  and  totally  impassable  except  for  very  small 
corials"  (B.  C,  VI,  p.  68).  He  therefore  returned  down  the 
creek,  proceeded  by  the  sea  coast,  and  entered  the  coast  territory 
from  the  sea.  On  his  return,  notwithstanding  the  heavy  weather 
and  that  he  was  "in  repeated  danger  of  being  swamped,"  he 
again  took  the  sea  route  (B.C.,  VI,  p.  72),  "  as  the  inland  com- 
munications were  all  nearly  dry." 

Still  more  emphatic  is  the  testimony  of  Superintendent 
McClintock  in  1848  (B.  C,  VI,  p.  171),  who  said: 

"The  want  of  a  canal  through  this  part  of  Upper  Morocco  forms  a  com- 
plete barrier  for  several  months  of  the  year  to  all  communication  with  the 


174  GEOGRAPHICAL    FEATUKKS. 

Rirers  Winey,  Barima  and  Oronoco,  thereby  cutting  off,  althougli  for  a 
time  only,  that  intercourse  so  essential  to  the  general  welfare  of  the  Ponie- 
roon  District." 

Mr.  im  Thurn,  the  able  and  efficient  British  Government 
Agent  in  charge  of  the  existing  Northwestern  District,  who 
has  had  twenty  years'  experience  in  the  colony,  says  (V.  C,  p. 
27)  of  what  he  calls  "a  narrow  itabbo  or  artificial  water-path, 
which  connects  the  Moruka  with  the  Waini  River": 

"This  connecting  passage  is  in  all  about  30  miles  in  length;  but  only 
about  the  first  10  miles  of  this  is  actually  semi-artificial  itabbo,  made  by 
the  constant  passage  of  the  canoes  of  the  Redman  through  the  swami)y 
savannah.     .     .     . 

"We  found  the  itabbo  section  of  this  passage  very  difficult  to  get 
through.  Generally,  it  was  hardly  wider  than  the  boat,  and  its  many 
abrupt  windings  added  to  our  difficulties.  .  .  .  We  had  either  to 
force  the  boat  under  the  low-lying  branches  or  make  a  passage  by  cutting 
them  away.  On  either  side  of  the  channel  the  ground  is  so  swampy  as 
hardly  anywhere  to  allow  foothold  of  even  a  few  inches  in  extent.     .     .     . 

*'  This  itabbo  is  quite  dry  in  the  longer  dry  seasons,  and  is  then,  of 
course,  impassable;  for  walking  along  its  banks  is  out  of  question — a  cir- 
cumstance which  has  a  good  deal  to  do  with  the  fact  that  the  parts  beyond 
had  up  till  then  been  almost  completely  shut  off  from  the  rest  of  the 
colony." 

The  piinciples  which  have  been  alieady  stated  in  discussing  the 
legal  effect  of  geographical  features  in  the  interior  district  apply 
with  equal  force  to  the  coast.  As  has  been  already  stated,  the 
question  is  a  question  of  natural  outlets.  Is  the  natural  outlet  of 
the  Amakura  and  the  Barima,  and  even  of  the  Waini,  which  is  to 
connect  those  rivers  with  the  nearest  trade  centres  and  with  the 
rest  of  the  world,  through  the  broad  and  deep  channels  at  their 
mouths,  into  the  Orinoco,  or  is  it  through  an  artificial  water- path 
thirty  miles  long,  "  hardly  wider  than  the  boat,"  which  during  a 
great  part  of  the  time  is  wholly  impassable?  These  last  are  the  feat- 
ures of  the  only  outlet  from  the  coast  territory  to  the  Esscquibo, 
according  to  the  highest  British  authority,  the  Government  Agent 


GEOGRAPHICAL  FEATURES.  175 

for  the  district.  To  which  river  system  are  these  great  water 
courses  and  the  territory  through  which  they  flow  naturally 
appurtenant?    This  admits  of  but  one  answer. 

Close  the  itabo  permanently  and  it  will  have  no  appreciable 
effect  upon  this  district.  Is  it  to  be  supposed  that  anybody  goes 
now  by  that  route  in  preference  to  going  outside  by  steamer?  This 
immense  territory  is  in  no  way  dependent  upon  the  passage 
through  the  savanna. 

We  cannot  close  this  discussion  without  calling  attention  to  the 
grossly  misleading  character  of  Map  3  of  the  British  Atlas,  which 
purports  to  show  the  water-basins.  The  author  of  the  British 
Case  has  chosen  to  unite  the  basin  of  the  Cuyuni  and  Massaruni 
with  that  of  the  Essequibo,  Of  this  we  do  not  complain,  because 
it  is,  perhaps,  well  to  show  in  this  graphic  way  how  the  applica- 
tion of  the  watershed  theory  makes  in  the  British  view  of  this  case 
the  possession  of  the  island  of  Kykoveral  extend  constructively  to 
the  banks  of  the  Orinoco.  It  also  shows  to  what  impossible  re- 
sults the  watershed  theory  would  lead  if  it  were  applied,  as  the 
law  forbids  it  to  be  applied,  to  lateral  frontiers.  The  point  with 
which  we  are  particularly  concerned,  however,  especially  in  view 
of  the  definition  given  to  the  so-called  "  Essequibo  basin,"  is  that 
given  to  the  Orinoco  basin.  While  every  tributary  of  a  tributary 
of  the  Essequibo  is  carefully  included  in  the  "basin"  of  that  river, 
one  of  the  most  imi)ortant  tiibutaries  of  the  Orinoco  is  excluded 
from  the  Orinoco  basin,  and  the  Barima  is  joined  with  the  Waini 

if  it  were  a  tributary  of  the  latter.  The  Barima  certainly  is  a 
tributary  of  the  Orinoco.  If  the  Waini  is  a  tributary  of  the 
Barima,  it  is  also  a  tributary  of  the  Orinoco.  If  they  can  be 
united  by  a  common  outlet,  they  form  an  integral  part  of  the 
basin  of  the  Orinoco. 

A  discussion  of  the  principles  of  law  bearing  upon  natural 
features  is  unnecessary  in  this  case,  because  they  have  no  applica- 
tion where  the  question,  as  here,  is  of  establishing  title  by  adverse 


176  GEOGRAPHICAL    FEATURES. 

holding.  They  have  only  been  mentioned  in  order  to  emphasize 
the  fact  that  the  physical  features  of  the  territory  in  dispute  make 
it  a  natural  appurtenance  of  the  Orinoco  rather  than  of  the  Esse- 
quibo,  and  because  at  various  times  in  the  history  of  the  contro- 
versy, chiefly  through  the  West  India  Company's  ignorance  of 
this  fact,  some  claim  inconsistent  with  it  has  been  made.  In  the 
case  of  an  adverse  holder,  however,  all  these  grounds  of  con- 
structive possession  are  denied.  He  takes  only  that  which  he 
actually  holds;  and  whether  the  natural  outlet  is  through  him  or 
through  the  holder  of  the  prior  title,  it  can  avail  him  naught. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

SPANISH  TITLE-DISCOVERY. 

We  now  address  ourselves  to  a  discussion  ofvthe  territorial 
titles  of  Spain  and  Venezuela,  on  the  one  side,  and  of  the  Nether- 
lands and  of  Great  Britain,  on  the  other,  in  Guiana. 

Venezuela  asserts  a  title  to  the  territory  in  dispute,  based  upon 
tlie  discovery  of  Guiana  by  Spain.  Guiana  had  become  a  known 
and  defined  geographical  district,  by  the  name  of  the  "Province 
of  Guiana,"  before  the  earliest  Dutch  voyager  touched  its  shores. 

Antonio    de    Berrio,   writing    in    1593,   speaks    repeatedly  of 

"Guiana,"  and  gives  iis  bounds  thus: 

"These  great  provinces  lie  between  two  very  great  rivers,  namely,  the 
Amazon  and  the  Orinoco  "*  (B.  C,  I.,  p.  5), 

In  the  anonymous  petition  to  the  States  General,  assigned  by 

the  British  Case  to  the  year  1603,  we  have  this  description  of  the 

"  Province  of  Guiana  ": 

"  The  Province  of  Guiana,  situated  in  America,  lies  upon  4,  6,  and  more 
degrees  north  of  the  equator,  extending  from  the  great  River  Amazon  to 
Punt  della  Rae  or  Trinidad  "  (B.  C,  I.,  p.  24). 

From  this  we  learn  that,  before  the  Dutch  had  entertained  a 
thought  of  going  there  for  settlement,  the  bounds  of  Guiana  were 
well  known  to  them,  and  that  it  had  come  to  be  called  a  "  Prov- 
ince," a  name  that  does  not  appropriately  describe  an  unappro- 
priated country. 

But  we  do  not  need  to  follow  the  evidence  found  in  the  cases 
of  the  respective  governments,  in  order  to  establish  our  point 
that  Guiana,  at  the  time  of  its  discovery  and  settlement  by  Spain, 
was  a  distinct  geographical  unit,   having  natural  boundaries  as 

*  The  region  was  described  by  Domingo  de  Vera  as  "  the  noble  prouinces  of  Guiana  and 
Dorado  "(V.  C,  vol.  i.,  p.  39), 


178  SPANISH  TITLE. 

distinct  as  those  of  an  island— for  all  this  is  most  forcibly  stated 

to  be  true  in  the  British  Case.     It  is  there  said: 

'*  Guiana,  as  understood  by  historians  and  geographers,  comprises  the 
territory  bounded  by  the  Orinoco,  the  Cassiquiare,  the  Rio  Negro,  the 
Amazon,  and  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  whence  it  was  often  spoken  of  as  the 
Island  of  Guiana  "  (B.  C,  p.  6). 

Major  John  Scott,  who  is  given  credit  by  the  presentation 
in  the  British  Case  (I.,  p.  167)  of  a  report  ascribed  to  him,  upon 
Guiana,  and  attributed  to  the  year  1669,  speaks  of  Guiana  as  a 
"province"  bounded  on  the  southeast  by  the  Amazon  and  on  the 
northwest  by  the  Orinoco,  fronting  230  leagues  on  the  Atlantic 
Ocean,  and  says  these  rivers  meet  in  the  interior.  He  therefore 
calls  it  an  "island."  The  area  embraced  within  these  bounds  is 
about  690,000  square  miles. 

And  yet  in  the  British  Counter- Case  (p.  137,  par.  2)  we  have 

this  remarkable  statement: 

"There  was  no  province  of  Guiana,  and  no  defined  tract  of  territory 
to  which  Spain  became  entitled  by  virtue  of  her  settlement  on  the 
Orinoco." 

It  is  admitted  by  Great  Britain  that  this  distinct,  well  defined 
geographical  unit,  called  Guiana,  was  discovered  by  Spain.  We 
quote: 

"It  is  admitted  that  Spain  was  the  first  nation  to  discover  Guiana" 
(B.  C.-C,  p.  130). 

These  admissions  might  be  fairly  taken  to  relieve  the  counsel 
of  Venezuela  from  the  duty  of  referring  to  any  of  the  evidence 
bearing  upon  the  subject  of  the  discovery  of  Guiana  by  Spain. 
But  we  prefer  to  call  attention  briefly  to  a  few  of  the 
Spanish  voyages  to  the  coasts  and  rivers  of  Guiana,  and  of 
Spanish  expeditions  into  the  interior,  especially  as  it  is  claimed 
by  Great  Britain  that  Spain's  explorations  were  very  limited. 

As  early  as  1502  Alonso  de  Ojeda,  sailing  from  Cadiz,  in  com- 
mand of  an  expedition,  visited  the  Gulf  of  Paria,  at  the  mouth  of 
the  Orinoco  (Winsor.   Narrative  and  Critical  History,  vol.  ii,  p  189). 


DISCOVERY.  179 

In  1530  Pedro  de  Acosta,  with  300  men,  settled  'Mu  Parema,  south- 
ward of  Oraiioque."  (B.  C.  I,  p.  169).  In  1531  Diego  de  Ordaz  sailed 
from  Spain  with  400  men,  cruised  along  the  whole  coast  of  Guiana 
from  the  Amazon  to  the  Orinoco,  proceeded  up  the  Orinoco  for  a  dis- 
tance of  200  leagues  (Ilerrera,  General  History;  London  edition  of 
1726, vol.  4,  pp.  182-186).  In  1541  Francisco  de  Orellana  went  down 
the  Amazon,  taking  possession  as  he  went,  and  passing  out  into 
the  Atlantic  sailed  northward  and  westward  along  the  entire  sea- 
coast  of  Guiana  (Herrera,  General  History;  translated  by  C.  R. 
Markham  for  the  Hakluyt  Society,  vol.  24,  pp.  24,  26  et  passim). 
In  1560  Pedro  de  Ursua  started  from  Peru  with  an  expedition  in 
search  of  El  Dorado.  He  started  down  one  of  the  affluents  of  the 
Amazon.  Lope  de  Aguirre,  one  of  his  officers,  after  Ursua's  death, 
led  the  expedition  down  the  Amazon  to  the  Rio  Negro,  and  thence 
reached  the  sea  by  way  of  the  Orinoco,  thus  completing  the  cir- 
cumnavigation of  Guiana  island,  begun  by  Orellana  above  twenty 
years    before.    (Fray  Pedro  Simon,    Noticias    Historiales;  1627, 

translated  by  C.  R.  Markham  for  the  Hakluyt  Society,  vol. , 

1861).  In  1568  a  Spanish  colony  of  126  families  settled  at  Cayenne 
(B.  C,  I,  p.  169).  Prior  to  1581  Gonzalo  Jimenez  de  Quesada  had 
undertaken  expeditions  into  Guiana,  expending  50,000  pesos  in 
connection  therewith.  Before  his  death  Antonio  de  Berrio  suc- 
ceeded him,  and  in  the  course  of  ten  years  made  three  expeditions 
in  search  of  El  Dorado,  expending  100,000  pesos,  and  settling 
Trinidad  in  1591  "for  depot  and  entrance  to  these  provinces" 
(B.  C,  I,  p.  8).  In  1591  or  1592  he  founded  Santo  Thome.  In  1594 
Berrio  thus  wrote  to  the  King  of  Spain: 

"Last  year  I  wrote  to  your  Majesty  how  the  Maestro  de  Campo, 
Domingo  de  Vera  y  Ybargoien,  .  .  .  had  entered  and  seen  the  begin- 
ning of  the  magnificence  of  these  provinces  which  it  was  impossible  to  do 
by  force  according/  to  the  many  people  who  have  tried  it,  with  500  men, 
etc."(tJ.,  p.  8). 

On  April  23,  1593,  Maestro  de  Campo  Domingo  de  Vera,  on 
behalf  of  Antonio  de  Berrio,  "  Gouernour  and  Captaine  generall 


180  SPANISH  TITLE. 

for  our  Ijorde  the  King,  betwixt  the  riuers  of  .  .  .  Orenoque 
and  Marannon"  took  very  formal  possession,  A  copy  of  the 
document  reciting  this  formal  taking  of  possession  is  printed  in 
the  Case  of  Venezuela  (pp.  38-41). 

In  1598  Cabeliau,  who  reported  on  the  first  official  Dutch 
voyage  known  to  historical  records,  says: 

"the  Spaniards  .  .  .  have  commenced  to  make  a  road  through 
the  rocks  and  hills  of  the  mountains  of  Weyana,  about  six  days'  journey 
south  of  the  Kiver  Worinoque, which  road  is  about  1600  'stadien'  long, 
and  so  broad  that  they  can  march  five  horses  abreast  through  it,  and  they 
think  by  these  means  to  conquer  the  country  "  (B.  C,  I,  p.  20). 

Major  John  Scott,  writing  in  [?  1666 J,  says: 

"I  shall  now  only  mencion  those  brave  Spaniards  that  from  the  first 
discoveries  of  the  West  Indies  to  the  yeare  1647 — some  with  great  force, 
others  with  few  followers — have  attempted  the  discovery  of  the  many 
provinces  in  the  mayne  of  Guiana,  as  well  up  the  Great  River  Amazones 
as  from  the  Atlantique  Ocean,  and  from  the  Hiver  Oranoque,  most  of 
which  perished  in  their  design es,  and  have  left  little  behinde  them  saveing 
the  remembrance  of  their  brave  undertakings. 


1. 

Diego  Deordas. 

12. 

Diego  d'Vorgas. 

2. 

Juan  Gorteza. 

13. 

Cacerez. 

3. 

Jasper  d'Sylva. 

14. 

Alonzo  d'Herera. 

4. 

Juan  Gonsales. 

15. 

Antonio  Sedenno. 

6. 

Phillip  Duverne. 

16. 

Augustine  Delgado. 

6. 

Pedro  d'Lympas. 

17. 

Diego  d'Lozada. 

7. 

Geronimo  d'Ortel. 

18. 

Rineso. 

8. 

Ximenes. 

19. 

Pedro  d'Orsua,  jun. 

9. 

Pedro  d'Orsua. 

20. 

Montiseno. 

10. 

Father  lala. 

21. 

Philip  d'Fonta. 

11. 

Fernandez  Diserpa. 

22. 

Juan  d'Palma." 
(B.  C.  I,  p.  171.) 

These  are  a  few  of  the  Spanish  expeditions  and  settlements 
prior  to  the  year  1600.  After  that  time,  and  possibly  before  Esse- 
quibo  itself  was  settled  by  Spaniards,  and  for  many  years  prior  to 
the  first  Dutch  establishment  in  that  river,  the  Spaniards  were 
accustomed  to  traverse  the  coast  region  between  the  Orinoco  and 


DISCOVERY.  181 

Essequibo,  and  to  trade  with  the  Indians  in  Barima,  Pomeroon 
and  Moruca. 

It  appears,  then,  conclusively,  from  the  admissions  of  Great 
Britain  and  from  historical  records,  that  Spain  discovered  the 
Province  of  Guiana,  a  well  defined  territorial  unit;  circumnavi- 
gated the  "island";  took  a  most  formal  and  public  ceremonial 
possession  of  it  in  1593,  accompanied  by  a  public  declaration  of 
her  purpose  to  appropriate  the  whole  region  from  the  Amazon  to 
the  Orinoco,  and  further  accompanied  by  the  submission  of  certain 
of  the  savage  tribes  within  the  region,  and  by  the  appointment  of 
a  governor;  entered  its  principal  rivers;  sent  her  exploring  ex- 
peditions into  the  interior;  founded  settlements,  that  were  never 
abandoned,  at  Trinidad  and  Santo  Thome,  and  another  that  was 
maintained  for  a  time  on  the  Essequibo;  another  at  Parema 
''southward  of  Oranoque";  and  yet  another  at  Cayenne;  that  this 
was  done  at  an  enormous  cost  and  with  the  publicly  avowed  in- 
tention of  appropriating  the  Piovince  of  Guiana — and  all  this 
before  any  Dutch  settlement,  within  the  bounds  of  Guiana,  was 
made  or  attempted. 

It  may  be  safely  said  that  no  title  by  discovery  to  any  part  of 
the  terra  firma  of  the  New  World  was  more  distinctly  and  natur- 
ally defined  as  to  its  limits,  or  more  safely  rested  upon  a  full  ex- 
ploration of  all  its  boundaries  and  upon  a  public  and  persistently 
maintained  assertion  of  a  purpose  to  appropriate  it. 

It  is  not  objected  by  Great  Britain  here,  as  it  has  been  in  other 
cases,  that  the  discovery  was  only  from  the  sea;  or  that  it  was 
casual;  or  that  the  land  was  not  visited  or  explored;  or  that  Guiana 
was  too  vast  to  be  appropriated  by  one  nation;  or  that  the  cere- 
monial occupation  was  not  by  the  national  authority,  or,  for  any 
other  reason,  imperfect.  The  evidence  presented  by  the  British 
Case  alone  shows  that  all  the  necessary  incidents  of  a  good  discovery 
of  Guiana  and  of  a  good  ceremonial  occupation  were  complete. 

But,  if  anything  is  lacking,  the  evidence  presented  by  Ven- 
ezuela, taken  with  the  admissions  of  the  British  Case,  we  submit. 


182  SPANISH    TITLE. 

establishes  beyond  debate  that  the  Spanish  discovery  of  Guiana 
was  accompanied  by  every  incident  necessary  to  give  to  Spain 
whatever  right  and  title  a  discoverer  may  have  to  a  region,  every 
boundary  of  which  he  was  the  first  to  traverse,  and  into  the  in- 
terior of  which  he  has  sent  many  official  expeditions. 

Let  us  now  try  to  ascertain  what  place  and  what  scope  the 
writers  upon  international  law  and  the  usage  of  the  great 
nations  give  to  discovery  as  a  source  of  title.  We  may  con- 
fidently declare,  at  the  outset,  that  every  important  commentator 
upon  international  law  admits  discovery  to  be  a  good  source  of  title 
and  that  every  one  of  the  great  nations  has  asserted  and  defended 
territorial  rights  based  upon  discovery.  The  writers  are  not  at 
one,  perhaps,  as  to  all  the  necessary  incidents  of  this  title;  but  all 
agree  that  a  good  discovery  gives  a  title  to  the  thing  discovered — 
a  primary  and  exclusive  right  to  appropriate  it,  and  that  the 
second  comer  enters  rightfully  only  when  there  has  been  an 
abandonment,  de  facto  or  dejure,  by  the  discoverer. 

Before  examining  the  authorities  and  the  precedents  it  may  be 

well  to  ascertain,  if  we  can,  just  what  is  the  position  taken  by 

Great  Britain  in  the  pending  controversy  upon  this  subject;  and 

we  have  therefore  assembled  these  extracts  from  the  "  Principles 

of  Law  "  stated  in  the  British  Case: 

"Discovery  of  new  territory,  apart  from  possession  and  effective  occu- 
pation, does  not  establish  an  absolute  and  permanent  right  to  dominion  ; 
it  only  gives  to  the  discovering  country  a  right  (which,  if  the  intention 
to  exercise  it  is  openly  asserted,  remains  for  a  reasonable  time  the  best  right) 
to  effectively' occupy  the  newly-discovered  territory"  (B.  C,  p.  149). 

Again: 

"  Newly-discovered  territories,  if  not  effectively  occupied  within  a  rea- 
sonable time  by  the  discoverer,  are  open  to  the  occupation  of  other  Powers, 
and  the  first  power  effectively  occupying  such  territory  obtains  an  absolute 
right  to  the  sovereignty  of  the  territory  occupied"  (B.  C,  p.  149). 

Again: 

"  In  the  passage  cited  above  from  Vattel,  the  true  effect  of  discovery  is 
for  the  first  time  pointed  out,  namely,  that  it  gives  to  the  discoverer  an 


DISCOVERY.  183 

opportunity,  by  taking  formal  but  notorious  possession,  to  acquire  an  in- 
choate title,  which  he  may  perfect  by  actual  occupation  within  a  reasonable 
time,  .  .  .  However,  all  writers,  both  before  and  since  Vattel,  whether 
they  do  or  do  not  expressly  concede  the  discoverer  an  inchoate  title,  agree 
that  mere  discovery,  apart  from  occupation,  can  of  itself  give  no  permanent 
dominion"  (B.  C,  p.  151). 

Again: 

"  The  absolute  right  of  the  discoverer  has  never  been  asserted  by  Great 
Britain.  It  is  true  that  in  some  early  charters,  such  as  that  to  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  in  1670,  it  is  recited  that  the  territory  to  be  occupied 
was  a  British  discovery,  but  this,  not  being  intended  to  justify  the  dispos- 
session of  any  actual  occupant,  is  not  material  "  (B.  C,  p.  152). 

Again: 

*'  The  right  of  the  discoverer  during  the  time  which  elapses  before 
effective  occupation  being  a  merely  inchoate  right,  it  follows  that  there 
must  come  a  time  when  it  lapses  de  jure,  whether  the  discoverer,  in  fact, 
acquiesces  or  not.  Where  this  is  the  case  the  country  may  be  occupied  by 
others,  whose  title  is  in  that  case  rightful  from  the  beginning. 

"  Sir  Travers  Twiss  says  : 

'  Settlement  Avhen  it  has  supervened  on  discovery  constitutes  a  perfect 
title,  but  a  title  by  settlement  when  not  combined  with  a  title  by  discovery 
is  in  itself  imperfect,  and  its  immediate  validity  will  depend  upon  one  or 
other  condition  that  the  right  of  discovery  has  been  waived  de  jure  by  non- 
user,  or  that  the  right  of  occupancy  has  been  renounced  de  facto  by  the 
abandonment  of  the  territory.' 

"  No  hard  and  fast  rule  can  be  laid  down  as  to  the  period  during  which 
this  right  remains  alive.  Hall  suggests  'such  time  as,  allowing  for  acci- 
dental circumstances  or  moderate  negligence,  might  elapse  before  a  force  or 
a  colony  were  sent  out  to  some  part  of  the  land  intended  to  be  occupied." 
The  period  may  well  vary  with  the  circumstances  of  the  territory  and  of 
the  discoverer,  and  it  would  not  be  reasonable  to  allow  as  long  for  the  com- 
pletion of  effective  occupation  at  the  present  day  as  might  have  been  allow- 
able some  centuries  ago  '  (B.  C,  pp.  153-164). 

And  then  we  have: 

"The  inchoate  right  of  the  discoverer,  as  apjiears  from  the  passage 
already  cited  from  Vattel,  and  as  is  also  made  clear  by  Hall,  is  based 
theoretically  on  his  formally  taking  possession.  That  the  form  should  for 
the  moment  be  accepted  as  equivalent  to  the  fact  is  only  reasonable  in  the 
application  of  the  theory  to  the  circumstances  of  a  discoverer  and  the 
nature  of  the  subject-matter.     But  formal  acts  of  possession  become  unreal 


184  SPANISH  TITLE. 

and  unmeaning  from  the  commencement  when  they  have  been  left  to  stand 
alone  for  a  longer  period  than  the  reasonable  indulgence  above  mentioned 
requires"  (B.  C,  p.  154). 

We  derive  from  these  statements  these  distinct  concessions: 

First.— That  the  discoverer  acquires,  by  his  discovery  and 
public  ceremonial  occupation,  the  best — which  we  take  to  mean 
the  exclusive — right  to  occupy  the  territory  discovered. 

Second.— That  the  ceremonial  possession  taken  by  the  dis- 
coverer is  for  a  time  accepted  as  an  actual  possession  of  the  terri- 
tory discovered  and  retains  that  equivalency  until  a  time  when 
the  form  becomes  "unreal  and  unmeaning,"  and  that  this  point 
is  reached  if  the  ceremonial  possession  is  "left  to  stand  alone" 
for  an  unreasonable  period. 

Third,  —That  the  reasonable  period  is  not  to  be  determined  by 
any  "hard  and  fast  rule,"  but  by  all  the  circumstances  surround- 
ing the  discoverer  and  the  territory;  that  the  rule  of  to-day  is  not 
the  rule  of  the  sixteenth  century;  but  that  within  that  reasonable 
period,  when  thus  ascertained,  the  fact  must  supersede  the  form. 

Fourth. — That  where  a  discovery  has  been  made  and  the 
"inchoate  right"  has  accrued  to  a  nation,  the  second  comer  must 
found  his  right  upon  an  abandonment  by  the  discoverer  of  the 
territory,  and  this  abandonment  may  be  derived  either  from  a 
presumption  of  law  drawn  from  the  attendant  circumstances,  or 
from  a  formal  renunciation  by  the  discoverer  of  his  title. 

Fifth. — If  the  British  Case  may  be  taken  to  approve  the  extract 
from  Hall — and  it  is  apparently  quoted  with  approbation — that 
the  duty  to  be  discharged  by  the  discoverer  within  the  reasonable 
time  mentioned  by  the  law  writers  is  to  send  out  "a  force  or 
colony "  "to  some  part  of  the  land "  discovered. 

But  Great  Britain  does  not  seem  to  allow  to  Spain  the  use 
of  Hall's  rule,  though  quoting  it  with  approval;  and  we  therefore 
proceed  to  discuss  the  question:  What  must  the  discoverer  do  to 
prevent  his  ceremonial  occupancy  from  becoming  "  unreal  and 
unmeaning  "?    It  is  not  claimed  that  the  ceremonial  occupation— 


DISCOVERY,  185 

the  setting  up  of  the  flag  or  cross,  and  the  accompanying  piocla- 
mation — is  effectual  only  as  to  the  spot  or  locality  where  the  cere- 
mony takes  place.  The  discovery  and  the  proclamation  furnish 
us  with  the  limits  of  the  ceremonial  occupation,  and  the  question 
that  remains  to  be  debated  is:  Does  au  actual  occupation  within 
the  bounds  of  the  ceremonial  occupation,  and  made  with  refer- 
ence to  that  ceremonial  occupation,  have  the  same  limits,  or  is  it 
narrowed  to  the  region  actually  occupied?  Must  the  ceremonial 
occupation  be  replaced  throughout  its  whole  extent  by  an  actual, 
effective  occupation,  in  order  to  save  the  title  of  the  discoverer? 

When  the  discoverer  has  made  and  maintains  some  settlement 
within  the  limits  of  his  ceremonial  occupation,  and  is  publicly 
and  continuously  asserting  sovereignty  over  the  whole,  an  actual 
intent  to  abandon  is  excluded.  If  in  such  case  abandonment  is 
decreed,  it  must  be  because  of  a  controlling  legal  presumption, — 
one  that  cannot  be  overcome  by  evidence.  The  British  Case 
makes,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  no  question  that  Spain  sent  forces  to 
and  made  permanent  settlement  in  Guiana,  within  a  reasonable 
period,  and  before  any  settlements  were  made  or  forces  sent 
thither  by  any  other  nation.  We  think  we  are  then  justified  in 
saying  that  the  case  has  been  brought  to  this:  That  Spain 
acquired  a  discoverer's  title  to  the  whole  of  Guiana;  that  this  title 
gave  her  the  exclusive  right  to  occupy  that  whole  territory  within 
a  reasonable  time  thereafter;  and  that,  before  this  indeterminate 
period  expired,  and  before  any  other  nation,  Spain  sent  her 
forces  there  and  made  actual  settlements  within  the  discovered 
territory. 

Why,  then,  is  not  Spain's  title  that  perfect  title  of  which  Sir 
Travers  Twiss  speaks?  Settlement  has  "supervened  on  dis- 
covery," and  that  before  any  other  nation  had  made  any  settle- 
ment within  the  bounds  of  Guiana.  We  are  answered  that  Spain 
did  not  effectively  occupy  the  whole  of  Guiana;  that  she  perfected, 
by  an  actual  occupation,  her  title  to  a  part  of  it,  but  abandoned 
another  part— not  in  fact,  nor  because  she  did  not  continue  to 


186  SPANISH  TITLE. 

proclaim  an  intent  and  make  efforts  to  occupy  all  of  it,  but  by  a 
conclusive  presumption  of  law,  one  that  is  not  to  be  shaken  by 
her  vehement  and  persistent  assertions  of  her  rights,  nor  by  the 
repeated  expulsions  by  her  armed  forces  of  those  who  entered 
adversely.  The  intruders  knew  there  had  been  no  abandonment 
as  a  matter  of  fact  by  Spain;  she  had  done  everything  else  that  was 
possible  to  maintain  her  title;  and  if  she  failed  it  was  because 
she  did  not  effectively  occupy  every  part  of  Guiana  before  the 
Dutch  came  in. 

We  address  ourselves  therefore  to  the  question:   Did  a  con- 
clusive legal  presumption  of   an  abandonment   by  Spain  of  her 
title,  as  a  discoverer,  to   the   disputed   territory,  arise  from  the  j 
fact  that  she   had   not  "effectively  occupied"  every  part   of  it 
before  the  Dutch  came  in? 

Before  proceeding  to  consider  the  legal  rules  applicable  to  this 
particular  question,  it  may  be  well  to  look  into  the  history  of  dis-  ^ 
covery  as  a  source  of  title  and  to  examine  the  general  rules  applic- 
able to  it,  as  given  by  the  courts  and  by  writers  upon  international 
law.  We  shall  in  the  first  place  undertake  to  show  that  every 
nation  that  has  ever  claimed  an  original  title  to  territory  in 
North  America  has  put  forward  discovery  as  a  good  source  of 
title. 

Chief  Justice  Marshall,  in  the  opinion  delivered  by  him  in  the 
case  of  Johnson  v.  Mcintosh,  decided  by  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  in  1823,  and  reported  in  8  Wheaton  (p.  528), 
deals  at  length  with  this  question,  and  the  opinion  has  been 
cited  with  approval  by  writers  on  international  law. 

We  quote  from  this  distinguished  jurist  this  clear  and  com- 
prehensive discussion  of  the  law  of  discovery  and  occupation,  as 
applied  by  all  the  great  powers  of  Europe  in  the  settlement  of 
America: 

**  On  the  discovery  of  this  immense  continent,  the  great  nations  of 
Europe  were  eager  to  appropriate  to  themselves  so  much  of  it  as  they  could 
respectively  acquire.      Its  vast  extent  offered  an  ample  field  to  the  ambition 


DISCOVERY.  18T 

and  enterprise  of  all;  and  the  character  and  religion  of  its  inhabitants 
afforded  an  apology  for  considering  them  as  a  people  over  whom  the 
superior  genius  of  Europe  might  claim  an  ascendancy.  The  potentates  of 
the  old  world  found  no  difficulty  in  convincing  themselves  that  they  made 
an  ample  compensation  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  new,  by  bestowing  on 
them  civilization  and  Christianity,  in  exchange  for  unlimited  independence. 
But,  as  they  were  all  in  pursuit  of  nearly  the  same  object,  it  was  necessary,  in 
order  to  avoid  conflicting  settlements,  and  consequent  war  with  each  other, 
to  establish  a  principle,  which  all  should  acknowledge  as  the  law  by  which 
the  right  of  acquisition,  which  they  all  asserted,  should  be  regulated  as  be- 
tween themselves.  This  principle  was,  that  discovery  gave  title  to  the 
government  by  whose  subjects,  or  by  whose  authority,  it  was  made,  against 
all  other  European  governments,  which  title  might  be  consummated  by 
possession. 

The  exclusion  of  all  other  Europeans,  necessarily  gave  to  the  nation 
making  the  discovery  the  sole  right  of  acquiring  the  soil  from  the  natives, 
and  establishing  settlements  upon  it.  It  was  a  right  with  which  no  Euro- 
peans could  interfere.  It  was  a  right  which  all  asserted  for  themselves, 
and  to  the  assertion  of  which,  by  others,  all  assented. 

******** 

In  the  establishment  of  these  relations,  the  rights  of  the  original  inhab- 
itants were,  in  no  instance,  entirely  disregarded;  but  were  necessarily,  to  a 
considerable  extent,  impaired.  They  were  admitted  to  be  the  rightful 
occupants  of  the  soil,  with  a  legal  as  well  as  just  claim  to  retain  possession 
of  it,  and  to  use  it  according  to  their  own  discretion;  but  their  rights  to 
complete  sovereignty,  as  independent  nations,  were  necessarily  diminished, 
and  their  power  to  dispose  of  the  soil  at  their  own  will,  to  whomsoever  they 
pleased,  was  denied  by  the  original  fundamental  principle,  that  discovery 
gave  exclusive  title  to  those  who  made  it. 

While  the  different  nations  of  Europe  respected  the  right  of  the  natives, 
as  occupants,  they  asserted  the  ultimate  right  to  be  in  themselves;  and 
claimed  and  exercised,  as  a  consequence  of  this  ultimate  dominion,  a  power 
to  grant  the  soil,  while  yet  in  possession  of  the  natives.  These  grants  have 
been  understood  by  all  to  convey  a  title  to  the  grantees,  subject  only  to  the 
Indian  right  of  occupancy. 

The  history  of  America,  from  its  discovery  to  the  present  day,  proves, 
we  think,  the  universal  recognition  of  these  principles. 

Spain  did  not  rest  her  title  solely  on  the  grant  of  the  Pope.  Her  discus- 
sions respecting  boundary,  with  France,  with  Great  Britain  and  with  the 


188  SPANISH   TITLE. 

United  States,  all  show  that  she  placed  it  on  the  rights  given  by  discovery. 
Portugal  sustained  her  claim  to  the  Brazils  by  the  same  title. 

France,  also,  founded  her  title  to  the  vast  territories  she  claimed  in 
America  on  discovery.  However  conciliatory  her  conduct  to  the  natives 
may  have  been,  she  still  asserted  her  right  of  dominion  over  a  great  extent 
of  country  not  actually  settled  by  Frenchmen,  and  her  exclusive  right  to 
acquire  and  dispose  of  the  soil  which  remained  in  the  occupation  of  Indians. 
Her  monarch  claimed  all  Canada  and  Acadie,  as  colonies  of  France,  at  a 
time  when  the  French  population  was  very  inconsiderable,  and  the  Indians 
occupied  almost  the  whole  country.  He  also  claimed  Louisiana,  compre- 
hending the  immense  territories  watered  by  the  Mississippi,  and  the  rivers 
which  empty  into  it,  by  the  title  of  discovery.  The  letters  patent  granted 
to  the  Sieur  Demonts,  iu  1603,  constitute  him  lieutenant-general  and  the 
representative  of  the  king  in  Acadie,  which  is  described  as  stretching  from 
the  40th  to  the  46th  degree  of  north  latitude;  with  authority  to  extend  the 
power  of  the  French  over  that  country,  and  its  inhabitants,  to  give  laws  to 
the  people,  to  treat  with  the  natives,  and  enforce  the  observance  of  treaties, 
and  to  parcel  out,  and  give  title  to  lands,  according  to  his  own  judgment. 

The  States  of  Holland  also  made  acquisitions  in  America,  and  sustained 
their  right  on  the  common  principle  adopted  by  all  Europe.  They  allege, 
as  we  are  told  by  Smith,  in  his  History  of  New  York,  that  Henry  Hudson, 
who  sailed,  as  they  say,  under  the  orders  of  their  East  India  Company,  dis- 
covered the  country  from  the  Delaware  to  the  Hudson,  up  which  he  sailed, 
to  the  43d  degree  of  north  latitude;  and  this  country  they  claimed  under 
the  title  acquired  by  this  voyage.  Their  first  object  was  commercial,  as 
appears  by  a  grant  made  to  a  company  of  merchants  in  1614;  but  in  1621, 
the  states-general  made,  as  we  are  told  by  Mr.  Smith,  a  grant  of  the  country 
to  the  West  India  Company,  by  the  name  of  New  Netherlands. 

The  claim  of  the  Dutch  was  always  contested  by  the  English;  not  be- 
cause they  questioned  the  title  given  by  discovery,  but  because  they  insisted 
on  being  themselves  the  rightful  claimants  under  that  title.  Their  preten- 
sions were  finally  decided  by  the  sword. 

No  one  of  the  powers  of  Europe  gave  its  full  assent  to  this  principle 
more  unequivocally  than  England.  The  documents  upon  this  subject  are 
ample  and  complete.  So  early  as  the  year  1496,  her  monarch  granted  a 
commission  to  the  Cabots  to  discover  countries  then  unknown  to  Christian 
people,  and  to  take  possession  of  them  iu  the  name  of  the  king  of  England. 
Two  years  afterwards,  Cabot  proceeded  on  his  voyage,  and  discovered  the 
continent  of  Noith  America,  along  which  he  sailed  as  far  south  as  Virginia. 
To  this  discovery  the  English  trace  their  title. 


DISCOVERY.  189 

In  this  6r8t  effort  made  by  the  English  government  to  acquire  territory 
on  this  continent,  we  perceive  a  complete  recognition  of  the  principle  which 
has  been  mentioned.  The  riglit  of  discovery  given  by  this  commission  is 
confined  to  countries  "then  unknown  to  all  Christian  people";  and  of 
those  countries  Cabot  was  empowered  to  take  possession  in  the  name  of  the 
king  of  England.  Thus  asserting  a  right  to  take  possession  notwith- 
standing the  occupancy  of  the  natives,  who  were  heathens,  and,  at  the  same 
time,  admitting  the  prior  title  of  any  Christian  people  who  may  have  made 
a  previous  discovery. 

The  same  principle  continued  to  be  recognised.  The  charter  granted  to 
sir  Humphrey  Gilbert,  in  1578,  authorizes  him  to  discover  and  take  posses- 
sion of  such  remote,  heathen,  and  barbarous  lands  as  were  not  actually  pos- 
sessed by  any  Christian  prince  or  people.  This  charier  was  afterwards 
renewed  to  Sir  Walter  Raleigh  in  nearly  the  same  terms. 

By  the  charter  of  1606,  under  which  the  first  permanent  English  set- 
tlement on  this  continent  was  made,  James  I.  granted  to  Sir  Thomas  Gates 
and  others,  those  territories  in  America  lying  on  the  seacoast,  between  the 
.'Hth  and  45th  degrees  of  north  latitude,  and  which  either  belonged  to  that 
monarch,  or  were  not  then  possessed  by  any  other  Christian  prince  or  people. 
The  grantees  were  divided  into  two  companies  at  their  own  request.  The 
first,  or  southern  colony,  was  directed  to  settle  between  the  34th  and  41st  de- 
grees of  north  latitude ;  and  the  second,  or  northern  colony,  between  the  38th 
and  45th  degrees. 

In  1609,  after  some  expensive  and  not  very  successful  attempts  at  settle- 
ment had  been  made,  a  new  and  more  enlarged  charter  was  given  by  the 
crown  to  the  first  colony,  in  which  the  king  granted  to  the  "  Treasurer 
and  Company  of  Adventurers  of  the  City  of  London  for  the  first  colony  in 
Virginia,"  in  absolute  property,  the  lands  extending  along  the  seacoast 
four  hundred  miles,  and  into  the  land  throughout  from  sea  to  sea.  This 
charter,  which  is  a  part  of  the  special  verdict  in  this  cause,  was  annulled,  so 
far  as  respected  the  rights  of  the  company,  by  the  judgment  of  the  court  of 
king's  bench  on  a  writ  of  quo  loari'mito;  but  the  whole  effect  allowed  to 
this  judgment  was,  to  revest  in  the  crown  the  powers  of  government,  and 
tlie  title  to  the  lands  within  its  limits. 

At  the  solicitation  of  those  who  held  under  the  grant  to  the  second  or 
northern  colony,  a  new  and  more  enlarged  charter,  was  granted  to  the 
Duke  of  Lenox  and  others,  in  1620,  who  were  denominated  the  Plymouth 
Company,  conveying  to  them  in  absolute  property  all  the  lands  between  the 
40th  and  48th  degrees  of  north  latitude. 

Under  this  patent,  New  England  has  been  in  a  great  measure  settled. 


190  SPANISH  TITLE. 

The  company  conveyed  to  Henry  Rosewell  and  others,  in  1627,  that  territory 
which  is  now  Massachusetts;  and  in  1628,  a  charter  of  incorporation, 
comprehending  the  powers  of  government,  was  granted  to  the  purchasers. 

Great  part  of  New  England  was  granted  by  this  company,  which,  at 
length,  divided  their  remaining  lands  among  themselves  ;  and,  in  1635,  sur- 
rendered their  charter  to  the  crown.  A  patent  was  granted  to  Gorges  for 
Maine,  which  was  allotted  to  him  in  the  division  of  property. 

All  the  grants  made  by  the  Plymouth  Company,  so  far  as  we  can  learn, 
have  been  respected.  In  pursuance  of  the  same  principle,  the  king,  in 
1664,  granted  to  the  Duke  of  York  the  country  of  New  England  as  far 
south  as  the  Delaware  Bay.  His  royal  highness  transferred  New  Jersey  to 
Lord  Berkeley  and  Sir  George  Carteret. 

In  1663,  the  crown  granted  to  Lord  Clarendon  and  others,  the  country 
lying  between  the  thirty  sixth  degree  of  north  latitude  and  the  river  St. 
Mathes;  and,  in  1666,  the  proprietors  obtained  from  the  crown  a  new 
charter,  granting  to  them  that  province  in  the  king's  dominions  in  North 
America  which  lies  from  thirty-six  degrees  thirty  minutes  north  lati- 
tude to  the  twenty-ninth  degree,  and  from  the  Atlantic  ocean  to  the  South 

sea. 

******* 

Further  proofs  of  the  extent  to  which  this  principle  has  been  recognised 
will  be  found  in  the  history  of  the  wars,  negotiations  and  treaties,  which 
the  different  nations,  claiming  territory  in  America,  have  carried  on,  and 
held  with  each  other. 

**«*  **** 

The  treaty  of  Aix  la  Chapelle,  which  was  made  on  the  principle  of  the 
status  ante  lellum,  did  not  remove  this  subject  of  controversy.  Commis- 
sioners for  its  adjustment  were  appointed,  whose  very  able  and  elaborate, 
though  unsuccessful  arguments,  in  favour  of  the  title  of  their  respective 
sovereigns,  show  how  entirely  each  relied  on  the  title  given  by  discovery  to 
lands  remaining  in  the  possession  of  the  Indians. 

After  the  termination  of  this  fruitless  discussion,  the  subject  was  trans- 
ferred to  Europe,  and  taken  up  by  the  cabinets  of  Versailles  and  London. 
This  controversy  embraced  not  only  the  boundaries  of  New  England,  Nova 
Scotia,  and  that  part  of  Canada  which  adjoined  those  colonies,  but  embraced 
our  whole  western  country  also.  France  contended  not  only  that  the  St. 
Lawrence  was  to  be  considered  as  the  centre  of  Canada,  but  that  the  Ohio 
was  within  that  colony.  She  founded  this  claim  on  discovery,  and  on  hav- 
ing used  that  river  for  the  transportation  of  troops,  in  a  war  with  some 
southern  Indians. 


i 


DISCOVERY.  191 

This  river  was  comprehended  in  the  chartered  limits  of  Virginia  ;  but, 
tliough  the  right  of  England  to  a  reasonable  extent  of  country,  in  virtue 
of  her  discovery  of  the  seacoast,  and  of  the  settlements  she  made  on  it,  was 
not  to  be  questioned  ;  her  claim  of  all  the  lands  to  the  Pacific  ocean,  be- 
cause she  had  discovered  the  country  washed  by  the  Atlantic,  might,  with- 
out derogating  from  the  principle  recognised  by  all,  be  deemed  extrava- 
gant. It  interfered,  too,  with  the  claims  of  France,  founded  on  the  same 
principle.  She  therefore  sought  to  strengthen  her  original  title  to  the 
lands  in  controversy,  by  insisting  that  it  had  been  acknowledged  by  France 
in  the  fifteenth  article  of  the  treaty  of  Utrecht.  The  dispute  respecting  the 
construction  of  that  article,  has  no  tendency  to  impair  the  principle,  that 
discovery  gave  a  title  to  lands  still  remaining  in  the  poseession  of  the  In- 
dians. Whichever  title  prevailed,  it  was  still  a  title  to  lands  occupied  by 
the  Indians,  whose  right  of  occupancy  neither  controverted,  and  neither  had 
then  extinguished. 

Thus,  all  the  nations  of  Europe,  who  have  acquired  territory  on  this 
continent,  have  asserted  in  themselves,  and  have  recognised  in  others,  the 
exclusive  right  of  the  discoverer  to  appropriate  the  lands  occupied  by  the 
Indians. 

This  opinion  conforms  precisely  to  the  principle  which  has  been  supposed 
to  be  recognised  by  all  European  governments,  from  the  first  settlement  of 
America.  The  absolute  ultimate  title  has  been  considered  as  acquired  by 
discovery,  subject  only  to  the  Indian  title  of  occupancy,  which  title  the  dis- 
coverers possessed  the  exclusive  right  of  acquiring." 

Hume  (Hist.  England,  Chap.  48)  gives   this   account  of  the 

view  taken  by  the  Protestant  nations: 

"The  more  scrupulous  Protestants,  who  acknowledged  not  the  au- 
thority of  the  Roman  pontiff,  established  the  first  discovery  as  the 
foundation  of   their  title." 

Spite,  then,  of  the  declaration  of  the  British  Case  that  "there 
has  never  been  any  question  among  legal  writers  that  the  title  of 
European  nations  to  territory  in  new  countries  rests  not  upon 
discovery,  but  upon  occupation,"  it  is  historically  true  that  Great 
Britain  based  all  of  her  original  titles  on  the  Atlantic  coast  of 
America  upon  discovery;  that  she  in  the  most  formal  and  serious 
state  papers  claimed  title  as  the  discoverer,  granted  that  title  to 


192  SPANISH  TITLE. 

companies  of  her  subjects  while  the  lands  were  in  whole  or  in 
great  part  not  only  unoccupied,  but  absolutely  unexplored,  and, 
by  these  grants  became  a  warrantor  of  the  title  and  made  good 
that  warranty  by  her  arms. 

The  British  Case  disposes  of  these  historical  incidents  in  a  way 
that  is  not  British.  It  is  true  that  in  these  charters  the  Nation, 
by  its  sovereign  Head  and  under  its  Great  Seal,  recited  that  the 
lands  granted  were  English  lands  by  the  right  of  discovery,  "but 
all  this,"  says  the  British  Case  (p.  152),  "not  being  intended  to 
justify  the  dispossession  of  any  actual  occupant,  is  not  material." 
Is  it  meant  that  Great  Britain  was  putting  forward  a  title  that 
she  was  ready  to  surrender  to  any  contesting  occupant — one  that 
she  would  not  support  in  behalf  of  her  grantees;  that,  while 
asserting  a  title  by  discovery,  she  did  not  believe  that  any  title 
could  be  rested  on  discovery?  Is  it  meant  that  the  lands  granted 
to  be  settled  were  not  British  territory  until  made  such  by  the 
effective  occupation,  by  the  grantees,  of  every  part  of  the  vast 
regions  described?  The  only  title  Great  Britain  had  to  grant 
was  the  discoverer's  title,  for  the  lands  covered  vast  tracts— in 
the  watershed  of  the  Mississippi  and  beyond  the  seacoast 
ranges — upon  which  no  British  foot  had  trod,  and  which  no 
rule  of  constructive  possession  would  have  assigned  to  her  as 
appurtenant  to  any  actual  occupation. 

A  map  of  the  British  possessions  in  North  America  in  1609,  or 
in  1620,  laid  down  on  the  principles  she  now  seeks  to  apply  to 
Venezuela,  would  be  a  most  interesting  exhibit. 

But  if  these  British  Charters  are  to  be  construed  as  granting 
only  the  lands  settled  and  those  appurtenant  to  such  settlements, 
we  shall  have  occasion  at  a  later  stage  of  the  argument  to  show 
what  a  tremendous  scope  Great  Britain  gave  to  a  feeble  coast 
settlement,  and  how  little  regard  she  then  paid  to  natural  bound- 
aries and  watersheds. 

The  statement  that  the  claim  to  a  title  by  discovery,  put  for- 
ward in  these  British  charters,  was  not  "intended  to  justify  the 


DISCOVERY.  193 

dispossession  of  any  actual  occupant,"  is  not  true.  The  claim  was 
put  forward  in  the  controversy  with  the  Dutch  over  New  Nether- 
land,  to  dispossess  the  Dutch  who  were  in  actual  occupation. 

In  1632,  England,  by  a  paper  sent  to  Holland,  asserted  a  right 

"  for  first  discovery,  occupation  and  the  possession  whicli  they  have  taken 
thereof,  and  by  the  concession  and  Letters  Patent  they  have  had  from  our 
sovereigns  "  (Brodhead  Papers,  i,  55). 

Later  in  the  discussion  (February  9,  1665)  it  was  said  on  behalf 

of  the  Dutch  Company,  to  the  Dutch  States-General,  and  through 

that  body  to  the  English  Government: 

"  The  right  which  the  English  found  on  the  Letters  Patent,  wherein 
their  king  grants  such  vast  extent  to  the  limits  of  the  English  so  as  to  in- 
clude also  all  the  possessions  of  this  nation,  is  as  ridiculous  as  if  your  High 
Mightinesses  [the  States-General]  bethought  yourselves  of  including  all 
New  England  in  the  patent  you  would  grant  to  the  [Dutch]  West  India 
Company.  Therefore,  a  continued  possession  for  such  a  long  series  of  years 
must  confer  on  this  nation  a  title  which  cannot  be  questioned  with  any 
appearance  of  reason."     (Brodhead  Papers,  i,  325.) 

In  his  reply  (April  7,  1665)  the  British  Ambassador  said: 

"The  Deputies  do  not  deny  that  this  Land  called  New  Netherland  is 
within  the  patents  granted  by  his  Maiesty  to  his  subjects,  and  he,  the  said 
Envoy  doth  affirm  that  it  is. 

"  And  as  to  the  point  of  Possession,  there  is  nothing  more  clear  and 
certain  than  that  the  English  did  take  possession  of  and  inhabited  the 
Lands,  within  the  Limits  of  the  said  patentii,  long  before  any  Dutch  toere 
there.  '  Tis  not  to  say  (nor  is  it  requisite  that  it  should  be  said)  that  they 
did  inhabit  every  Individuall  Spot,  within  the  limits  of  them.  It  is  enough 
that  their  patent  is  the  first,  and  that  in  pursuance  thereof,  they  had  taken 
possession,  and  did  inhabit  and  dwell  within  the  same,  and  made  consider- 
able Towns,  Forts  and  Plantations  therein  before  the  Dutch  came  to  dwell 
there.  Is  it  to  be  imagined  that  the  Dutch  East-Indie  Company  have  fully 
peopled  and  cultivated  the  Island  of  Ceylon,  and  other  of  their  great 
Colonies  in  the  East-Indie,  and  yet  if  the  English  should,  upon  such  pre- 
tence, endeavor  to  settle  there  without  their  consent,  Would  they  approve 
thereof,  or  suffer  the  same  or  accomp  their  title  there  to  be  good,  or  other 
than  Precarious?"  (Brodhead  Papers,  i,  33-<>.) 

The  Dutch  set  up  a  double  title  by  discovery  to  the  New  Neth- 
erlands (New  York);  a  discovery,  by  Spain,  of  the  New  World,  to 


194  SPANISH  TITLE. 

which  they  had  succeeded,  as  to  the  New  Netherlands,  by  the 
Treaty  of  Munster;  and  a  discovery  of  this  particular  region  by 
their  own  navigators.  In  the  charter  granted  to  the  West  India 
Company  in  1664,  a  title  by  discovery  is  also  set  up.     We  quote: 

"Now,  therefore,  we,  being  hereby  desirous  of  assuring  all  and  sundry 
whom  it  may  in  any  way  concern,  of  our  intention  in  the  aforewritteu 
Charter,  do  declare  our  meaning  to  have  been  expressly,  and  still  to  be,  that 
the  aforementioned  Company,  in  conformity  with  the  aforewritten  Charter, 
was  empowered,  and  still  is  empowered,  to  establish  colonies  and  settlements 
of  people  on  lands  which  are  not  occupied  by  others,  to  extend  themselves 
so  far  as  the  limits  hereinbefore  related,  and  especially  since  the  same  is 
necessary  for  preservation  of  the  right  which  is  due  to  them,  by  virtue  of 
the  aforewritten  Charter,  hy  discovery  and  occvpation  on  the  fresh  river, 
and  other  places  situated  more  easterly  in  New  Netherland,  up  to  Cape  Cod, 
and  from  Cape  Hinloopen,  and  15  miles  southerly,  both  along  the  coast, 
provisionally,  and  pending  further  agreement,  respecting  the  limits  to 
be  made  between  the  King  of  Great  Britain  and  ourselves."  (B.  C,  I,  p. 
151.) 

Russia,  too,  has  brought  forward  a  title  by  discovery  as  applic- 
able to  her  former  American  possessions.  Sir  Travers  Twiss  says 
(Oregon  Case,  p.  162)  that  as  to  Alaska,  Russia  claimed  "the 
title  of  first  discoverer;  the  title  of  first  occupation;  and  in  the 
last  place  that  which  results  from  a  peaceable  and  uncontested 
possession  of  more  than  half  a  century." 

As  we  have  already  seen,  France  '*  founded  her  title  to  the 
vast  territories  she  claimed  in  America  on  discovery." 

That  Spain  and  Portugal  asserted  the  right  of  the  discoverer, 
from  the  earliest  times,  cannot  be  denied. 

The  statements  we  have  quoted  from  Chief  Justice  Marshall, 
and  the  following  from  Wheaton's  International  Law  (Sec.  166) 
are  historically  indisputable: 

''Independent  of  this  papal  grant,  the  right  of  prior  discovery  was  the 
foundation  upon  which  the  diflferent  European  nations,  by  whom  conquests 
and  settlements  were  successively  made  on  the  American  continent,  rested 
their  respective  claims  to  appropriate  its  territory  to  the  exclusive  use  of 
each  nation.  Even  Spain  did  not  found  her  pretensions  solely  on  the 
papal  grant." 


I  DISCOVERY.  195 

The  United  States  presented  a  claim  to  Oregon  based  on  dis- 
covery.    And  Cobbett  (Int.  Law  Cases,  2d  Ed.,  p.  35T)  says: 

"In  support  of  the  British  claim  stress  was  hiid  on  the  discovery  of 
Meares  and  Vancouver  and  other  Englishmen  who  had  made  explorations 
inland." 

I  It  appears  then  that  England,  Holland,  Spain,  Portugal, 
France,  Russia  and  the  United  States — the  only  nations  that  have 
claimed  original  titles  to  American  territory — have  all  rested  their 
rights  to  such  territory  upon  discovery,  and  have,  as  we  shall 
see,  treated  this  title  as  perfected,  by  feeble  settlements,  to  vast 
regions  not  only  not  "effectively  occupied"  but  largely  unex- 
plored. 

Let  us  now  see,  somewhat  in  detail,  what  the  writers  upon  in- 
ternational law  say  as  to  the  two  forms  of  title  by  appropriation  — 
that  of  the  discoverer,  and  that  of  the  second  comer— and  par- 
;  ticularly  the  rules  they  give  us  for  determining  whether  there 
has  been  such  an  abandonment  by  the  discoverer  as  to  give 
another  the  right  to  enter  and  appropriate. 

It  is  clear  that  a  right  to  appropriate  property  can  only  exist, 
first,  when  the  property  has  never  had  an  owner,  and,  second, 
when,  having  had  an  owner,  it  has  been  abandoned.  The  first  is 
the  discoverer's  appropriation,  and  is  a  perfect  title  from  the  be- 
ginning. The  appropriation  of  the  second  comer  gives  an  imper- 
fect title,  especially  if  the  abandonment  upon  which  it  rests  for  its 
validity  is  a  mere  implication. 

The  British  Case,  in  the  extract  already  given  (p.  153),  quotes 
Sir  Travers  Twiss  as  saying:  _ 

"  Settlement,  when  it  has  supervened  on  discovery,  constitutes  a  perfect 
title,  but  a  title  by  settlement  when  not  combined  with  a  title  by  discovery 
is  iu  itself  imperfect,  and  its  immediate  validity  will  depend  upon  one  or 
other  condition  that  the  right  of  discovery  has  been  waived  de  jure  by  uon- 
user,  or  that  the  right  of  occupancy  has  been  renounced  de  facto  hy  the 
abandonment  of  the  territory  "  (Twiss,  Law  of  Nations,  2d  ed.,  p.  310). 

The  proposition  of  law  propounded  by  Great  Britain  as  applic- 
able here,  is  that  in  order  to  perfect  his  title  the  discoverer  must, 


196  SPANISH  TITLE. 

•'  within  a  reasonable  time,"  ''  effectively  occupy  "  all  of  the  ter- 
ritory discovered;  and  that  if  he  does  not  do  so  the  "first  power 
etTectively  occupying  such  territory  obtains  an  absolute  right  to 
the  sovereignty  of  the  territory  occupied  "  (B.  C,  p.  149). 

The  effective  occupation  which  it  is  claimed  the  discoverer 
must  accomplish  within  a  reasonable  time  after  discovery  is 
thus  defined   in  the  British   Case: 

"  Effective  occupation  means  the  use  and  employment  of  the  re- 
sources of  the  country  and  the  general  control  of  its  inhabitants 
under  the  protection  and  by  the  authority  of  a  government  claiming 
and  exercising  jurisdiction  in  that  behalf"  (B.  C.,p.  149). 

This  is  to  say  that  the  discoverer's  title  is  not  perfected 
until  he  has  brought  into  use  the  resources  of  the  whole  ter- 
ritory discovered,  and  has  subjected  its  savage  inhabitants  to 
his  control. 

Upon  this,  we  remark,  in  passing,  first,  that  it  is  not  a 
correct  statement  of  the  law;  second,  that  if  it  were  it  would 
involve  a  very  great  extension  of  "  the  reasonable  period  ";  and, 
third,  that  it  will  hardly  be  claimed  that  a  less  strict  rule 
must  be  applied  to  the  second  comer. 

This  last  difficulty  Great  Britain  has  not  failed  to  observe. 
If  the  rule  were  to  be  applied  to  the  Dutch  in  all  its  strict- 
ness, it  was  obvious  to  the  compilers  of  the  British  Case  that 
the  Dutch  possessions  in  Guiana  would  be  very  limited;  and 
so  we  find  some  labored  attempts  to  introduce  ameliorations 
of  its  strictness,  adapted  to  British  needs.  Thus  it  is  said 
(p.  155),  that  while  settlement  and  cultivation  are  always  pres- 
ent in  effective  occupation,  "of  course  the  area  occupied  will 
not  be  confined  to  the  actual  sites  appropriated  for  residence 
or  cultivation  ";  and  a  quotation  from  Field,  used  approvingly, 
allows  that  an  "effective  control"  of  a  region  raises  a  legal 
presumption  of  occupation — effective  occupation,  of  course — 
and  this  with  or  without  the  use  of  its  resources.  Again,  it 
is  said   that    the    assertion  and    maintenance  of    an    exclusive 


DISCOVERY.  197 

right  to  trade  "  in  any  specific  area,  surrounding  its  settle- 
ments," is  ''effective  control." 

And  if  the  right  to  trade  is  used  (we  suppose  a  use  is  im- 
plied), though  it  be  the  merest  and  most  primitive  barter  of 
beads  for  skins,  in  a  land  capable  of  producing  enormous  crops 
of  the  best  cereals  to  feed  a  hungry  world,  or  of  producing  the 
precious  metals,  that  is  a  sufficient  use  of  the  "  resources  of  the 
country  '*  to  complete  effective  control.  In  other  words,  if  the 
discoverer,  or  the  second  comer,  claims  and  enforces  a  right  to 
dispose  of  the  trade  with  the  savages  within  "  any  specific  area 
(he  may  fix  his  own  limits)  surrounding  his  settlements,"  that  is 
the  control  of  the  inhabitants— one  element  of  "  effective  occupa- 
tion"; and,  if  he  uses  this  primitive  trade  in  any  degree,  he 
has  perfected  his  title,  by  an  effective  occupation,  to  the  "spe- 
cific area,"  however  vast. 

In  another  statement  upon  this  subject  (B.  C,  p.  156)  an 
"effective  occupation"  is  allowed  without  the  use  of  either  of 
the  elements  of  the  formal  definition  we  have  been  discussing. 
We  quote: 

"Again,  when  the  Government  of  a  settlement  acquires  the  exclusive 
ascendancy  over,  and  alliance  with,  surrounding  tribes,  and  by  that  means 
excludes  foreign  influence  from  the  territory  which  they  inhabit,  that 
territory  is  effectively  occupied  as  against  the  colonizing  enterprise  of  any 
other  country." 

Here  no  control  of  the  inhabitants  is  required,  for  the  "as- 
cendancy "  goes  with  an  "alliance;"  no  use  of  the  resources  of  the 
country,  but  only  the  exclusion  of  "  foreign  influence,"  and  that 
effected  by  alliances  with  the  savage  tribes.  If  by  the  gift  of 
three  pints  of  glass  beads  a  native  chief  can  be  made  to  keep  out 
"  foreign  influence,"  an  "  effective  occupation  "  has  been  perfected. 
In  other  words,  a  commercial  treaty  with  a  savage  chief,  by  which 
an  exclusive  right  to  the  foreign  trade  of  a  region  is  secured,  may 
constitute  "  effective  occupation,"  without  a  post  or  a  settlement. 


198  SPANISH   TITLE. 

or  indeed  without  any  right  to  establish  one;  for  the  acceptance  of 
a  treaty  grant  to  exclusive  trade  rights  from  a  native  chief  is  an 
acknowledgment  of  his  sovereignty. 

It  seems  to  have  been  overlooked  that  Rule  (a)  of  our 
Arbitration  Treaty  contains  an  implied  admission  that  even  an 
"exclusive  political  control,"  which  is  much  larger  than  a  trade 
alliance,  is  not,  by  the  rules  of  international  law,  an  ''effective 
occupation,"  else  it  would  not  have  been  left  in  the  Tribunal's  dis- 
cretion whether  it  should  be  taken  as  such.  ' 

But,  without  further  comment  upon  these  impossible  and 
irreconcilable  definitions,  let  us  see  what  a  discoverer  is  required 
to  do,  after  his  ceremonial  occupation,  to  save  his  title.  It  should 
be  first  stated— a  proposition  that  we  think  will  not  be  contro- 
verted— that  a  good  ceremonial  possession  extends  to  the  entire 
region  discovered.  There  was  no  rule  of  international  law  when 
the  New  World  was  discovered  and  was  being  occupied,  by  which 
the  regions  appropriated  by  discovery  could  be  limited.  The  mere 
sighting  of  a  continent  from  the  sea,  or  a  single  landing  upon  its 
shores,  might  not  support  a  title  by  discovery  to  the  entire  con- 
tinent. But,  if  not,  it  was  because  there  had  not  been  a  good  dis- 
covery of  the  continent.  We  do  not  need  here  to  discuss  that 
point,  however,  for  the  region  in  question  is  only  the  "province 
of  Guiana,"  and  the  discovery  was  accompanied  by  many  land- 
ings and  very  extensive  exploiations,  including  every  part  of  all 
its  boundaries. 

The  claim  of  Spain,  by  her  ceremgnial  possession,  included  the 
province  of  Guiana,  and  her  title,  as  the  discoverer  covered  the 
whole  of  it.  No  other  nation  could  thereafter  found  any  right  to 
any  part  of  the  province  upon  discovery;  for  Spain  had  left  no 
part  undiscovered. 

Twiss  says: 

"There  can  be  no  second  discovery  of  a  country.  In  this  respect  title  by 
discovery  differs  from  title  by  settlement"  (Oregon  Case,  p.  166). 


DISCOVERY.  199 

International  law  offers  only  three  titles  to  a  second  comer:  A 
title  by  conquest,  a  title  by  treaty,  a  title  by  prescription— the  last 
including  the  title  based  upon  the  discoverer's  abandonment. 

It  seems  to  be  the  contention  of  the  British  Case  that  if  the 
discoverer  fails  to  accomplish  an  "  effective  occupation,"  according 
to  one  of  the  various  definitions  of  those  terms  given,  within  a 
reasonable  time,  his  title  absolutely  fails,  and  that  whether  any 
other  nation  has  entered  or  not.  This  we  deny,  and  assert  the 
rule  and  the  reason  to  be  that  no  matter  what  time  has  elapsed 
after  discovery,  if  the  discoverer  makes  an  actual  occupation 
before  any  other  nation  his  "title  by  settlement  is  superadded  to 
title  by  discovery." 

And,  first,  as  to  the  reason  of  the  rule  requiring  occupation. 
It  is  that  the  vacant  lands  of  the  world  may  not  indefinitely  be 
kept  out  of  use;  that,  failing  such  a  use  by  the  discoverer,  a  pre- 
sumption of  abandonment  arises,  and  any  other  nation  may  take 
and  use  them.  The  reason  only  requires  that  the  title  of  the  dis- 
coverer be  subordinate  to  a  possible  public  need  of  the  lands.  But, 
if  their  non-occupation  refutes  this  presumption,  and  the  dis- 
coverer, after  any  time,  becomes  the  first  settler,  why  should  any 
forfeiture  be  enforced  against  him.  Indeed  how  can  a  forfeiture 
be  enforced  against  him  in  his  own  behalf.  Can  he  prescribe 
against  himself  in  his  own  behalf? 

Vattel  (pp.  99-100)  has  this  to  say  of  the  title  by  discovery: 

"All  mankind  have  an  equal  right  to  things  that  have  not  yet  fallen 
into  the  possession  of  any  one ;  and  those  things  belong  to  the  person  who 
first  takes  possession  of  them.  When  therefore  a  nation  finds  a  country 
uninhabited  and  without  an  owner,  it  may  lawfully  take  possession  of  it  : 
and  after  it  has  sufficiently  made  known  its  will  in  this  respect  it  cannot  be 
deprived  of  it  by  another  nation.  Thus  navigators  going  on  voyages  of 
discovery,  furnished  with  a  commission  from  their  sovereign,  and  meeting 
with  islands  or  other  lauds  in  a  desert  state,  have  taken  possession  of  them 
in  the  name  of  their  nation :  and  this  title  has  been  usually  respected,  pro- 
vided it  was  soon  after  followed  by  a  real  possession.  But  it  is  questioned 
whether  a  nation  can,  by  the  bare  act  of  taking  possession,  appropriate  to 


200  SPANISH   TITLE. 

itself  countries  which  it  does  not  really  occupy  and  thus  engross  a  much 
greater  extent  of  territory  than  it  is  able  to  people  or  cultivate.  It  is  not 
difficult  to  determine  that  such  a  pretension  would  be  an  absolute  infringe- 
ment of  the  natural  rights  of  men,  and  repugnant  to  the  views  of  nature, 
which,  having  destined  the  whole  earth  to  supply  the  wants  of  mankind  in 
general,  gives  no  nation  a  right  to  appropriate  to  itself  a  country,  except  for 
the  purpose  of  making  use  of  it,  and  not  of  hindering  others  from  deriving 
advantage  from  it.  The  law  of  nations  will,  therefore,  not  acknowledge  the 
property  and  sovereignty  of  a  nation  over  any  uninhabited  countries,  except 
those  of  which  it  has  really  taken  actual  possession,  in  which  it  has  formed 
settlements,  or  of  which  it  makes  actual  use," 

In  view  of  this  quotation  (partially  given  in  the  British  Case,  p. 
150),  we  cannot  understand  how  Great  Britain  can  justify  the 
assertion  that  "  Vattel  never  even  notices  the  claim  of  a  discov- 
erer as  such;  nor  does  he  appear  to  regard  newly  discovered  terri- 
tory as  subject  to  any  other  rule  as  regards  their  appropriation 
than  other  vacant  lands,"  For,  to  the  most  casual  reader,  it  must 
be  plain  that  this  author  speaks  first  of  a  ceremonial  possession  by 
the  discoverer,  the  nation  thus  making  known  its  purpose  to  ap- 
propriate the  region,  and  declares  that  the  title,  acquired  by  these 
acts,  which  is  that  of  a  discoverer,  has  been  usually  respected, 
"  provided  it  was  soon  after  followed  by  a  real  possession."  If  this 
is  not  to  affirm  that,  pending  the  "  soon  after,"  the  discoverer  has 
a  title,  what  is  it?  And  if  for  ''soon  after"  we  read  "within  a 
reasonable  time,"  do  we  not  have  the  iule  as  to  title  by  discovery 
stated  much  as  other  writers  state  it?  No  one  has  claimed  that  a 
ceremonial  possession  gives  to  the  discoverer  an  indefeasible  title. 
We  should  notice,  also,  that  the  reason  given  by  Vattel  for  this 
rule  is  precisely  what  we  stated  it  to  be,  namely,  that  for  one 
nation  indefinitely  to  exclude  others  from  territory  that  it  does  not 
attempt  to  occupy  is  repugnant  to  the  law  of  nature,  which  des- 
tined the  earth  to  supply  the  wants  of  mankind.  A  title  defeasi- 
ble by  the  effective  appropriation  of  another  nation  fully  responds 
to  this  law  of  nature.  It  is  tlie  hindering  of  others  from  using 
what  you  do  not  yourself  use  that  is  not  allowable;  and  a  defeasi- 


DISCOVERY.  201 

ble  title  removes  the  hindrance.  It  is  not,  however,  a  question  of 
the  fullest  or  the  best  use  of  the  territory.  That  would  be  a  peril- 
ous test  of  dominion.  Great  Britain  has  much  territory  that  is 
not  settled. 

We  thus  find  that  Vattel,  who  is  supposed  by  our  opponents 
to  be  less  favorable  than  othei'  wiiters  to  title  by  discovery,  only 
requires  that  the  ceremonial  possession  shall  "  soon  after"  be  fol- 
lowed by  an  actual  posssession.  Some  settlement,  or  some  actual 
use  makes  the  title  good,  that  is,  perfects  it.  He  does  not  at 
all  support  the  doctrine  that  every  part  of  the  territory  must 
be  "  effectively  occupied,"  its  resources  appropriated  and  its 
inhabitants  brought  under  control  before  the  discoverer's  title 
is  perfected.  On  the  contrary,  he  allows  title  to  the  territory 
"  in  tvhich^^  settlements  have  been  made.  We  shall  find  upon  a 
fuller  examination,  we  think,  that  the  requirement  is  that,  within 
a  reasonable  time,  such  acts  shall  be  done  as  give  evidence  of  an 
intention  in  good  faith  to  carry  out  the  implication  of  the  cere- 
monial possession;  that  is,  to  appropriate  the  region  to  actual 
uses.  This  does  not  require  the  occupation  of  every  part— at  once 
or  at  any  time 

The  quotations  from  Martens  and  Kluber,  given  in  the  British 
Case  (p.  151)  not  only  do  not  support  the  theory  that  the  dis- 
coverer's title  can  only  be  perfected  by  an  effective  occupation  of 
the  whole  territory,  but  ai'e  to  the  contrary.  Martens  speaks  of 
the  case  where  the  discoverer  of  an  island,  &c.,  immediately 
abandons  it,  leaving  no  "  permanent  traces  of  possession  and  of 
his  intent. ^^  What  is  demanded  here  is  evidence,  in  the  territory, 
of  an  intent — enough  to  be  notice  that  there  is  a  bona  fide  pur- 
pose to  occupy. 

So  Kluber  only  disallows  intention  as  a  mere  mental  process, 
and  requires  that  it  shall  have  a  tangible  expression.  This  we 
allow,  but  insist  that  Trinidad,  Santo  Thome  and  Essequibo,  and 
the  armed  expeditions  of  Spain,  the  expulsion  of  the  Dutch,  etc., 


202  SPANISH   TITLE. 

furnish  the  required  indicia  of  possession  and  of  intent— the  tang- 
ible expressions  that  these  distinguished  writers  insist  upon. 

The  British  Case  (p.  153)  quotes,  as  we  have  seen,  with  apparent 
approval,  from  Hall,  this  definition  of  the  time  limit,  and  of  the 
occupancy  to  be  accomplished  within  it: 

"  Such  time  as,  allowing  for  accidental  circumstances  or  moderate  neg- 
ligence, might  elapse  before  a  force  or  a  colony  were  sent  out  to  some  part 
of  the  land  intended  to  be  occupied  "  (Hall,  Int.  Law,  4th  Ed.,  p.  108). 

As  is  well  said  by  Hall  {Id.,  p.  118): 

"  When  voyages  of  discovery  extended  over  years,  when  the  coasts  and 
archipelagos  lying  open  to  occupation  seemed -inexhaustible  in  their  vast- 
ness,  when  states  knew  little  of  what  their  agents  or  the  agents  of  other 
countries  might  be  doing,  and  when  communication  with  established  posts 
was  rare  and  slow,  isolated  and  imperfect  acts  were  properly  held  to  have 
mean  ing  and  value.  When  therefore  it  first  became  worth  while  to  ques- 
tion rights  to  a  given  area,  or  to  dispute  over  its  boundaries,  the  tests  of 
effective  occupation  were  necessarily  lax." 

There  is  no  period  to  which  these  words  can  apply  so  forcibly 
as  during  the  century  and  a  half  immediately  following  the  dis- 
covery of  America  by  Columbus;  and  we  believe  it  to  be  true  that 
in  no  case  has  the  title  to  extensive  regions  on  the  Continent  of 
America  been  estabhshed  and  perfected  by  a  more  complete  series 
of  acts  of  occupation  than  those  of  the  Spanish  in  Guiana  during 
the  first  century  and  a  half. 

That  the  views  of  this  writer  may  be  better  understood,  we 
quote  from  him  more  at  length.     He  says  {ib.,  pp.  106-109): 

"  §  32.  When  a  state  does  some  act  with  reference  to  territory  unappro- 
priated by  a  civilised  or  semi-civilised  stale,  which  amounts  to  an  actual 
taking  of  possession,  and  at  the  same  time  indicates  an  intention  to  keep 
the  territory  seized,  it  is  held  that  a  right  is  gained  as  against  other  states, 
which  are  bound  to  recognise  the  ijitention  to  acquire  property,  accom- 
panied by  the  fact  of  possession,  as  a  sufficient  ground  of  proprietary  right. 
The  title  which  is  thus  obtained,  and  which  is  called  title  by  occupation, 
being  based  solely  upon  the  fact  of  appropriation,  would  in  strictness  come 
into  existence  with  I  he  commencement  of  effective  control,  and  would  last 
only  while  it  continued,  unless  the  territory  occupied  had  been  so  long  held 


DISCOVERY.  203 

that  title  by  occupation  had  become  merged  in  title  by  prescription. 
Hence  occupation  in  its  perfect  form  would  suppose  an  act  equivalent  to  a 
declaration  that  a  particular  territory  had  been  seized  as  property,  and  a 
subsequent  continuous  use  of  it  either  by  residence  or  by  taking  from  it  its 
natural  products. 

States  have  not  however  been  content  to  assert  a  right  of  property  over 
territory  actually  occupied  at  a  given  moment,  and  consequently  to  extend 
their  dominion  pari  passu  with  the  settlement  of  unappropriated  lands.  The 
earth-hunger  of  colonising  nations  has  not  been  so  readily  satisfied;  and  it 
would  besides  be  often  inconvenient  and  Eometimes  fatal  to  the  growth  or 
j)erilous  to  the  safety  of  a  colony  to  confine  the  property  of  an  occupying 
state  within  these  narrow  limits.  Hence  it  has  been  common,  with  a  view  to 
future  eflFective  appropriation,  to  endeavour  to  obtain  an  exclusive  right  to 
territory  by  acts  which  indicate  intention  and  show  momentary  possession, 
but  which  do  not  amou!it  to  continued  enjoyment  or  control;  and  it  has 
become  the  practice  in  making  settlements  upon  continents  or  large  islands 
to  regard  vast  tracts  of  country  in  which  no  act  of  ownership  has  been  done 
as  attendant  upon  the  appropriated  land.* 

In  the  early  days  of  European  exploration  it  was  held,  or  at  least  every 
state  maintained  with  respect  to  territories  discovered  by  itself,  that  the  dis- 
covery of  previously  unknown  land  conferred  an  absolute  title  to  it  upon  the 
state  by  whose  agents  the  discovery  was  made.  But  it  has  now  been  long 
settled  that  the  bare  fact  of  discovery  is  an  insufficient  ground  of  proprietary 
right.  It  is  only  so  far  iiselul  that  it  gives  additional  value  to  acts  in  them- 
selves doubtful  or  inadequate.  Thus  when  an  unoccupied  country  is  formally 
annexed  an  inchoate  title  is  acquired,  whether  it  has  or  has  not  been  dis- 
covered by  the  state  annexing  it;  but  when  the  formal  act  of  taking 
possession  is  not  shortly  succeeded  by  further  acts  of  ownership,  the  claim 
of  a  discoverer  to  exclude  ottier  states  is  looked  upon  with  more  respect  than 
that  of  a  mere  appropriator,  and  when  discovery  lias  been  made  hy  persons 
competent  to  act  as  agents  of  a  state  for  the  purpose  of  annex(itio?i,  it  will 
be  presumed  that  they  have  used  their  powers,  so  that  in  an  indirect  man- 
ner discovery  may  be  alone  enotiyh  to  set  up  an  inchoate  title. 

An  inchoate  title  acts  as  a  temporary  bar  to  occupation  by  another  state, 
but  it  must  either  be  converted  into  a  definitive  title  within  reasonable  time 
hy  planting  settlements  or  military  posts,  or  it  must  at  least  be  kept  alive  by 
repeated  local  acts,  showing  an  intention  of  continual  claim.     What  acts 

*Some  writers  (c.  g„  Kliiber,  §  126  ;  Ortolan,  Domaine  International,  45-47  ;  Bluntschli, 
§§  218,  281)  refuse  to  acknowledge  that  title  can  he  acquired  without  continuous  occupation, 
but  their  doctrine  is  independent  of  the  facts  of  universal  practice. 


204  SPANISH  TITLE, 

are  sufficient  for  the  latter  purpose,  and  what  constitutes  a  reasonable  time, 
it  would  be  idle  to  attempt  to  determine.  The  effect  of  acts  and  of  the 
lapse  of  time  must  be  judged  by  the  light  of  the  circumstances  of  each  case 
as  a  whole.  It  can  only  be  said,  in  a  broad  way,  that  when  territory  has 
been  duly  annexed,  and  the  fact  has  either  been  published  or  has  been  re- 
corded by  monuments  or  inscriptions  on  the  spot,  a  good  title  has  always 
been  held  to  have  been  acquired  as  against  a  state  making  settlements 
within  such  time  as,  allowing  for  accidental  circumstances  or  moderate 
negligence,  might  elapse  before  a  force  or  a  colony  were  sent  out  to  some  part 
of  the  land  intended  to  be  occupied;  but  that  in  the  course  of  a  few  years 
the  presumption  of  permanent  intention  afforded  by  such  acts  has  died 
away,  if  they  stood  alone,  and  that  more  continuous  acts  or  actual  settle- 
ment by  another  power  became  a  stronger  root  of  title.  On  the  other  hand, 
when  discovery,  coupled  with  the  public  assertion  of  ownership,  lias  been 
followed  up  from  time  to  time  by  further  exploration  or  by  temporary 
lodgments  in  the  country,  the  existence  of  a  continued  interest  in  it  is  evi- 
dent, and  the  extinction  of  a  proprietary  claim  may  be  prevented  over 
a  long  space  of  time,  unless  more  definite  acts  of  appropriation  by  another 
state  are  effected  without  protest  or  opposition." 

It  will  be  seen  that  Hall  strongly  supports  the  contention  of 
Venezuela.  He  holds  that  the  inchoate  title  of  the  discoverer  may 
be  converted  into  a  definitive  title  by  planting  settlements  or  mili- 
tary  posts,  and  may  even  be  kept  alive  by  repeated  local  acts  of 
less  moment,  but  showing  "  an  intention  of  continual  claim";  and 
that  vast  tracts  of  country,  in  which  no  act  of  ownership  has  been 
done,  may  be  effectively  appropriated  by  very  limited  settlements. 
It  is  only  where  the  ceremonial  occupancy  has  "stood  alone"— 
has  not  been  followed  by  expeditions,  explorations,  settlements  or 
other  like  acts — that  it  becomes  unmeaning. 

Discussing  the  inchoate  title  by  discovery  or  occupation,  West- 
lake  says  (Int.  Law,  pp.  160-16J): 

"  The  first  of  the  questions  of  detail  which  have  been  alluded  to  is  under 
what  conditio)} s  did  discovery  formerly,  or  does  a  commencement  of  occupa- 
tion now,  confer  an  inchoate  title  to  territorial  sovereignty — that  is,  the 
right  of  occupying  or  completing  the  occupation  within  a  reasonable  time, 
and  of  subjecting  or  expelling  the  settlements  lohich  other  civilized  powers 
or  thetr  subjects  may  have  made  in  the  interval?    The  most  important  con- 


DISCOVERY.  205 

dition  is  that  the  state  claiming  an  inchoate  title  shall  make  known  its  in- 
tention of  deriving  the  full  benefit  from  the  discovery  made  or  occupation 
commenced  by  itself  or  its  subjects,  or  at  least  that  there  shall  be  no  reason- 
able doubt  about  the  intention  in  the  circumstances.  Were  this  not  the 
case,  another  state  or  its  subjects  might  enter  the  country  under  a  reason- 
able belief  that  it  had  not  been  appropriated  by  a  foreign  power,  and  might 
justifiably  complain  if  an  inchoate  title  claiming  precedence  over  theirs  was 
afterwards  sprung  on  them.  Accordingly  it  has  always  been  usual  for  the 
state  which  intends  to  claim  an  inchoate  title  to  make  its  intention  known 
from  the  beginning.  'In  newly  discovered  countries,'  Lord  Stowell  said, 
'where  a  title  is  meant  to  be  established  for  the  first  time,  some  act  of  pos- 
session is  usually  done  and  proclaimed  as  a  notification  of  the  fact.'  (In 
the  Famu,  5  C.  Robinson  115.)  Here  notification  is  to  be  understood  in 
the  general  sense  of  making  known,  and  not  in  the  special  sense  of  an  ex- 
press communication  to  other  powers,  in  which  it  is  used  in  Art.  34  of  the 
general  act  of  the  Conference  of  Berlin, 
t  ********  * 

What  has  been  deemed  suflBcient  to  make  known  the  intention  of  appro- 
priating the  sovereignty  has  naturally  varied  with  the  circumstances  of  dif- 
ferent times.  It  never  was  thought  that  a  discovery  might  be  kept  secret 
and  the  benefit  of  it  retained." 

This  writer  does  not  attempt  here  to  specify  the  particular 
:  things  that  a  discoverer  must  do,  for  there  is  no  fixed  schedule. 
^  He  must  do  such  things  as  will  make  known  his  intention  "of 
I  deriving  the  full  benefit   from   the   discovery;"   such   things  as 
will  be  reasonable  notice  to  other  States,  so  that  they  may  not 
enter    in    the    reasonable    belief    that    the    lands    are    unappro- 
priated.    In  the  case  in  hearing  no  inchoate  title  was  ''sprung" 
upon    the   Dutch.      They   entered   in   disregard   of   Spain's   well 
known  intention  to  claim  the  full  benefit  of  her  discovery. 

Surely  it  cannot  be  contended  that  a  post  or  colony,  estab- 
lished by  a  discoverer  within  a  reasonable  time,  can  have  no 
reference  to  the  extent  of  his  discovery  and  of  his  ceremonial 
occupation;  that  the  discoverer  gets  no  more  by  his  settlement 
than  a  second  comer  would  get — only  so  much  as  he  actually 
occupies — or  as  is  appurtenant  to  it  by  the  ordinary  rules  of 
law;   that   to  this   extent   only   the   inchoate  title   is  perfected, 


206  SPANISH  TITLE. 

and,  as  to  all  else,  lost  to  any  comer;  that  the  discoverer's  first 
actual  settlement  is  not  to  be  accepted  as  a  beginning  only, 
but  a  beginning  and  an  end.  Hall  says:  "The  claim  of  a  dis- 
coverer to  exclude  other  States  is  looked  upon  with  more  re- 
spect than  that  of  a  mere  appropriatory  Or  does  Great  Britain 
mean  that  the  discoverer  has  a  reasonable  time  to  make  a  first,  a 
second  and  a  third  settlement,  and  so  on  until  he  has  "effect- 
ively occupied"  his  whole  discovery? 

Do  the  nations  stand  by,  hour  glasses  in  hand,  timing  these 
intervals,  and  ready  to  intervene  and  seize  when  the  interval 
between  settlements  is  fancied  to  be  unreasonable?  Not  so.  If 
the  discovery  of  Guiana  by  the  Spaniards  was  a  good  discovery  —  J 
and  it  is  not  challenged— the  inchoate  title  derived  therefrom  was 
to  Guiana;  and  a  firm  settlement  within  that  region,  and  within 
a  reasonable  time,  or  before  any  other  nation  had  entered,  per- 
fected that  title — not  in  part,  but  in  its  entirety.  Spanish  Santo 
Thome  is  not  to  be  limited  by  the  rules  that  apply  to  Dutch  Esse- 
quibo.  Spain  was  the  discoverer;  the  Dutch  '*  mere  appropri- 
atoi-s."  What  else  can  Hall  meau  when  he  speaks  of  sending  a 
force  or  a  colony  "to  some  part  of  the  land  intended  to  be  occu- 
pied"? Such  an  act  is  completely  expressive  of  the  discoverer's 
"intention,"  as  Westlake  says,  "of  deriving  the  full  benefit  from 
the  discovery  made." 

Legal  possession,  which  may  form  the  basis  of  a  title,  may 
exceed  the  limits  of  actual  physical  occupation.  The  mere  acty 
considered  by  itself,  is  possession  only  of  the  land  physically  occu- 
pied. But  the  occupation  of  part  of  a  tract,  in  the  name  of  the 
ivhole,  constitutes  an  entry  into  and  possession  of  the  whole. 
The  contemporaneous  manifestation  of  intent  will  define  the 
legal  effect  of  the  act. 

In  private  law  an  entry,  under  a  deed  describing  certain  metes 
and  bounds,  upon  any  part  of  the  land,  is  a  possession  of  the 
whole,  if  there  is  then  no  adverse  possession. 


DISCOVERY.  207 

In  Ellicott  V.  Pearl  (10  Peters,  441-2),  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  says: 

"  An  entry  into  possession  of  a  tract  of  land,  under  a  deed  containing 
specific  metes  and  bounds,  gives  a  constructive  possession  of  the  whole 
tract,  if  not  in  any  adverse  possession,  although  there  may  be  no  fence  or 
enclosure  around  the  ambit  of  the  tract,  and  an  actual  residence  only  on  a 
part  of  it." 

And  again  in  Hunnicutt  t;.  Peyton  (102  U.  S.  Sup.  Crt.,  333, 
3t)8),  that  Court  says: 

"When  the  owner  of  the  Basques  title  entered  upon  the  tract,  took 
actual  possession  of  a  part  by  his  tenant,  and  retained  it,  claiming  the 
whole,  the  law  gave  to  that  owner  the  constructive  possession  of  all  that 
was  not  in  the  actual  adverse  possession  or  occupancy  of  another." 

The  entry  of  the  discoverer  upon  a  part,  under  a  claim  to  the 
whole,  is,  upon  the  same  principle,  an  occupation  of  the  whole. 
His  claim  is  to  the  territory  discovered;  and,  when  that  terri- 
tory as  here  has  well-defined  bounds,  his  entry  is  to  be  referred 
to  that  claim,  precisely  as  if  he  had  entered  under  a  deed  or 
patent. 

That  an  entry  upon  a  part  for  the  whole  is  good,  Great  Britain 
asserted  distinctly,  as  we  have  seen,  in  her  controversy  with  the 
Dutch  over  New  Netherland.  The  British  colonies  were  settled 
under  patents  from  the  King  defining  vast  territorial  limits 
and  Great  Britain  claimed  that  a  few  settlements  within  those 
limits  effected  a  good  possession  of  the  whole. 

We  quote  again  the  words  of  the  British  Ambassador: 

"And  as  to  the  point  of  Possession,  there  is  nothing  more  clear  and 
certain  than  that  the  English  did  take  possession  of  and  inhabit  the 
Lands,  within  the  Limits  of  the  said  patents,  lo7ig  before  any  Dutch  were 
there.  'Tis  not  to  say  (nor  is  it  requisite  that  it  should  be  said)  I  hat 
they  did  inhabit  every  Individuall  Spot  within  the  limits  of  them.  It 
is  enough  that  their  patent  is  the  first,  and  that  in  pursuance  thereof,  they 
had  taken  possession,  and  did  inhabit  and  dwell  within  the  same,  and 
made  considerable  Towns,  Forts  and  Plantations  therein  before  the  Dutch 
came  to  dwell  there."  (Brodhead  Papers,  i,  332.) 


208  SPANISH  TITLE. 

If  the  principle  thus  invoked  by  Great  Britain  be  applied  to  the 
case  at  bar,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how,  in  view  of  the  Spanish  grant 
to  Berrio,  Great  Britain  can  avoid  admitting  that  Guiana  was 
possessed  by  Spain.  The  evidence  regarding  this  grant  is  as  fol- 
lows: 

"  The  Audiencia  of  the  new  kingdom  of  Granada  made  a  contract 
,  .  .  with  Captain  Antonio  de  Berrio  respecting  the  exploration  and 
settlement  of  Bl  Dorado  .  .  .  They  gave  him  the  government  of 
THOSE  PROVINCES  for  two  lives  .  .  .  His  Majesty  was  pleased  to  ap- 
prove, and  ordered  arrangement  to  be  sanctioned  in  1586  ;  thereupon  the 
said  Berrio  entered  on  the  work  and  founded  in  .  .  .  Trinidad  the 
town  of  San  Joseph  de  Aruna  and  inland  that  of  Santo  Thome.  He  died 
in  1597,  and  was  succeeded  by  his  sou  Fernando  de  Berrio."  (V.  C.-C, 
vol,  iii,  p.  5.) 

This  Berrio  grant  was  prior  to  any  Dutch  grant;  it  was,  there- 
fore, so  far  as  the  Dutch  were  concerned,  a  *' first  patent":  it  was 
**  in  pursuance  thereof"  that  Berrio  took  ^^  possession  and  did  in- 
habit and  dwell  within  the  same,"  making  ^'considerable  toivns, 
forts  and  plantations  therein  before  the  Dutch  came  to  diuell  there." 
Does  not  such  a  grant,  and  do  not  such  acts,  meet  the  require- 
ments of  the  law  as  stated  by  the  British  Ambassador? 

It  is  well  shown,  as  matter  of  fact,  that  the  settlements  at 
Trinidad  and  at  Santo  Thome  had  a  direct  reference  to  the 
occupation  of  the  Province  of  Guiana.  The  letter  of  Berrio  to 
the  King  of  Spain,  written  in  January,  1593  (B.  C,  L,  p.  1), 
shows  that  the  occupation  of  Guiana  was  the  gieat  object  for 
the  attainment  of  which  he  endured  so  many  perils,  privations 
and  losses.     Speaking  of  Trinidad,  he  says: 

**  I  saw  clearly  that  if  that  island  were  not  settled  it  would  be  im- 
possible to  settle  Guayana"  (Id.,  p.  3). 

And,  in  December,  1594,  he  wrote: 

"  And  this  Island  of  Triuidad,  which  I  settled  three  ye^irs  ago  for  dep6t 
and  entrance  to  these  great  provinces"  {Id.,  p.  8). 


DISCOVERY.  209 

In  these  letters  we  have  such  further  expressions  of  his 
purpose  as  these: 

"I  shall  attempt  to  penetrate  into  the  interior  of  Guayana." 
"I  will  enter  immediately  into  Guayana;  and  if  it  is  one-twentieth  of 
what  is  supposed,  it  will  be  richer  than  Peru." 

The  account  given  by  de  Vera  of  the  possession  taken  in 
April,  1593  (V.  C,  vol.  i.,  p.  381),  refers  to  Berrio  as  Governor 
and  Captain- General  for  the  King  between  the  Amazon  and  the 
Orinoco,  and  of  Trinidad;  recites  that  Berrio  had  discovered  "  the 
noble  provinces  of  Guiana  and  Dorado,"  and  had  taken  "posses- 
sion to  govern  the  same;"  that  he  (de  Vera)  had  been  sent  to 
find  out  and  discover  the  way  "to  enter  and  to  people  the  said 
[uovinces,"  etc.  The  publicity  which  these  proceedings  were 
intended  to  have  was  promoted  by  the  fact  that  the  letter  of  de 
Vera  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  British  by  capture  at  sea.  So 
that  Great  Britain  had,  in  1593,  the  most  formal  and  effective 
notice  of  Spain's  purpose  to  occupy  the  whole  of  Guiana;  that 
her  entry  on  the  Orinoco  was  to  be  referred  to  that  intent,  and 
that  Guiana  had  been  constituted  a  Spanish  Province,  and  a 
Governor  appointed  over  it. 

In  furtherance  of  this  purpose  to  occupy  Guiana,  which  did 
not  originate  with  Berrio,  Trinidad  and  Santo  Thome  were  settled 
and  fortified,  and  for  a  time  a  settlement  was  maintained  at 
Essequibo. ' 

Access  to  the  interior— the  Caroui  and  Cuyuni  basins — was 
then  believed  to  be  only  by  the  Orinoco,  from  its  south  bank,  at 
some  point  below  and  near  to  the  mouth  of  the  Caroni. 

If,  then,  settlements  made  by  the  discoverer  of  a  defined 
territory  within  that  territory,  and  having  for  their  expressed 
purpose  the  appropriation  of  that  territory,  can  in  any  case  have 
that  effect,  we  have  that  case  here. 

Our  adversaries  are  driven  to  maintain  the  proposition  that  the 
discoverer  must,  within  the  reasonable  time  given  for  the  substi- 
tution of  an  actual  for  a  ceremonial  possession,  accomplish  the 


210  SPANISH  TITLE. 

''etfective  occupation"  of  the  whole  region;  that  the  settlements 
of  the  discoverer  can  have  no  larger  constructive  extent  or  effect, 
than  those  of  a  nation  coming  afterwards  into  the  territory. 
Which  is  to  say  that  the  possession  of  one  entering  under  a  deed 
cannot  be  larger  than  that  of  a  squatter.  These  propositions,  we 
believe,  have  never  been  put  forward  before,  and  they  are  on  their 
face  untenable  and  unreasonable.  It  is  certain  that  they  do  not 
square  with  the  former  practice  and  diplomatic  pretensions  of 
Great  Britain. 

Twiss  (Oregon  Case,  pp.  164-5),  quotes  from  a  note  of  Messrs. 
Huskisson  and  Addington,  the  British  Commissioners  in  the 
Oregon  dispute,  under  date  of  Decembei",  1826; 

"  Upon  the  question  how  far  prior  discovery  constitutes  a  legal  chiini  to 
sovereignty,  the  law  of  nations  is  somewhat  vague  and  undefined.  It  is, 
however,  admitted  by  the  most  approved  writers,  that  mere  accidental  dis- 
covery, unattended  by  exploration — by  formally  taking  possession  in  the 
name  of  the  discoverer's  sovereign — by  occupation  and  settlement  more  or 
less  permanent — by  purchase  of  the  territory,  or  receiving  the  sovereignty 
from  the  natives — constitutes  the  lowest  degree  of  title;  and  that  it  is  only 
in  proportion  as  first  discovery  is  followed  by  any  or  all  of  these  that  such 
title  is  strengthened  and  confirmed." 

Here  the  Spanish  discovery  of  Guiana  was  not  accidental;  it 
was  attended  by  extended  and  costly  explorations,  by  the  formal 
taking  of  possession,  in  the  name  of  the  discoverer's  sovereign,  by 
the  formal  submission  of  certain  tribes  on  the  Orinoco  and  in  the 
interior,  and  by  permanent  occupation  and  settlement.  These 
British  Commissioners  did  not  venture  to  suggest  that  the  actual 
occupation  nmst  cover  the  whole  region;  indeed,  what  they  say  is 
quite  to  the  contrary.  If  they  had  advanced  such  a  contention  to 
defeat  the  claim  of  the  United  Slates,  they  would  have  left  no 
ground  for  the  British  claim  to  rest  upon. 

And  Twiss  himself  says  (Oregon  Case,  p.  166): 

"  It  thus  seems  to  be  universally  acknowledged  that  discovery,  though  it 
gives  a  right  of  occupancy,  does  not  found  the  same  perfect  and  exclusive 
title  which  grows  out  of  occupation,  and  that  unless  discovery  be  followed 


I 


DISCOVERY.  211 

within  a  reasonable  time  hy  some  sort  of  seltlement,  it  will  be  presumed 
either  to  have  been  originally  inoperative,  or  to  have  been  subsequently 
abandoned. " 

If  followed  by  ''  some  sort  of  settlement,"  there  is  no  inference 
of  abandonment.  Now,  much  as  Great  Britain  minimizes  the 
Spanish  settlements,  she  will  hardly  contend  that  they  did  not 
meet  this  description. 

In  his  Law  of  Nations  (Sec.  128),  Twiss  distinctly  rests  the  title 
of  the  second  comer,  upon  an  abandonment  by  the  discoverer,  upon 
his  implied  ac(|uiescence.  He  also  quotes  Wheaton  to  the  same 
effect.     He  srays: 

"  Settlement  when  it  has  supervened  on  discovery  constitutes  a  perfect 
title,  but  a  title  by  settlement,  when  not  combined  with  a  title  by  discovery, 
is  in  itself  imperfect,  and  its  immediate  validity  will  depend  on  one  or  other 
condition ;  that  the  right  of  discovery  hsis  been  waived  de  jure  by  non-user, 
or  that  the  right  of  occupancy  has  been  renounced  de  facto  by  the  abandon- 
ment of  the  territory.  When  title  by  settlement  is  superadded  to  title  by 
discovery  the  law  of  nations  will  acknowledge  the  settlers  to  have  a  perfect 
title,  but  when  title  by  settlement  is  opposed  to  title  by  discovery,  although 
no  convention  can  be  appealed  to  in  proof  of  the  discovery  having  been 
waived,  still  a  tacit  ac(iuiescence  on  the  part  of  the  nation  that  asserts  the 
discovery,  during  a  reasonable  lapse  of  time  since  the  settlement  has  taken 
place,  will  bar  its  claim  to  disturb  the  settlement." 

Again  he  says  (Sec.  129): 

"Title  by  settlement,  then,  as  distinguished  from  title  by  discovery, 
when  set  up  as  a  perfect  title,  resolves  itself  into  title  by  usucaption  or 
prescription." 

This  shows  that  any  settlement  by  the  discoverer  has  this 
special  effect  and  significance:  it  refutes  the  implication  of  an 
intent  to  abandon  his  discovery.  It  does  more  — it  is  the  affirma- 
tive expression  of  his  purpose  to  make  good  his  title,  not  to  a 
part,  but  to  the  whole.  No  other  can  enter  until  the  discoverer  has 
in  fact  or  by  implication  abandoned  his  right,  and  no  such 
implication  can  arise  after  he  has  taken  an  actual  possession  of  a 
part  for  the  whole.     It  is  most  important  also  to  notice  that  in  the 


212  SPANISH  TITLE. 

opinion  of  this  author  the  Dutch  title  here  must  be  rested  on 
prescription. 

The  following  from  a  dispatch  by  Lord  Salisbury,  December  26, 
1889,  to  the  Portuguese  Government  (Blue  Book,  Africa,  No.  2, 
1890),  recognizes  the  difference  between  a  paper  occupancy  and 
one  where  there  are  acts  that  express  the  intention  : 

"  It  is  not,  indeed,  required  by  international  law  that  tiie  whole  extent 
of  a  country  occupied  by  a  civilized  power  should  be  reclaimed  from  bar- 
barism at  once;  time  is  necessary  for  the  full  completion  of  a  process 
which  depends  upon  the  gradual  increase  of  wealth  and  population;  but, 
on  the  other  hand,  no  paper  annexation  of  territory  can  pretend  to  any 
validity  as  a  bar  to  the  enterprise  of  other  nations,  if  it  Las  never,  through 
vast  periods  of  time,  beeti  accompanied  by  any  indication  of  an  intention  to 
maTce  the  occupation  a  reality,  and  has  been  suffered  to  be  ineffective  and 
unused  for  centuries." 

This  is  to  say  that  if  Spain,  by  actual  settlement  within 
Guiana,  made  her  occupation  "  a  reality,"  and,  by  her  expeditions  ' 
into  the  country  and  the  expulsion  of  others,  continued  to  assert 
her  purpose,  her  appropriation  of  Guiana  was  good.  She  did  not 
loose  to  any  comer  the  regions  which  she  had  not  reclaimed  from 
barbarism. 

Field,  in  his  National  Code  (p.  29),  proposes  that  the  right  of 
the  discoverer  shall  be  decreed  to  be  abandoned  "if  the  intent  to 
exercise  it  is  not  manifested  within  twenty-five  years  after  dis- 
covery," 

This  recognizes  the  principle  that  before  a  second  comer  can 
have  a  perfect  title,  the  right  of  the  discoverer  must  be  gotten 
out  of  the  way,  and  the  further  principle  that  an  abandonment 
cannot  be  inferred  while  he  continues  to  manifest,  by  suitable 
acts  there,  the  intent  to  appropriate  the  territory.  A  settlement 
or  a  post  in  any  part  of  the  land  -especially  when  it  has,  or  is 
given,  a  definite  relation  to  a  specific  discovery— is  an  efficient  and 
open  manifestation  of  that  intent. 

If  Great  Britain  might  completely  withdraw  from  the  Falk- 
land Islands,  leaving  them  without  any  semblance  of  occupation 


W' 


DISCOVERY.  2lS 

for  over  fifty  years,  and  still  maintain  that  she  had  not  aban 
doned  them,  with  what  show  of  reason  can  she  claim  an  abandon- 
ment of  any  part  of  Guiana,  as  against  Spain,  in  the  face  of  her 
actual  and  maintained  settlements,  of  her  constant  and  public 
assertion  of  her  rights,  of  the  frequent  marches  of  her  armed 
forces  through  the  interior,  and  of  the  expulsion  by  her  of  in- 
truders from  time  to  time?  No;  unless  it  results  from  some 
inexorable  rule  of  law,  that  will  not  take  any  account  of  these 
things;  that  will  accept  nothing  less  than  the  effective  occupation 
of  every  part,  no  title  can  be  maintained  against  Spain  to  any 
part  of  Guiana  upon  the  theory  of  an  abandonment. 

So  Grotius  (War  and  Peace,  Book  2,  Ch.  4,  p.  86)  allows  that 
the  intention  of  the  rightful  owner  may  be  manifested  by  "some 
external  sign."  It  is  the  intent  to  abandon  upon  which  the  right 
of  the  other  rests,  and  this  is  rebutted  by  express  and  visible 
acts  showing  an  intent  to  keep.  A  settlement  in  any  part  of 
the  country  may  be  that. 

That  an  "effective  occupation"  of  the  whole  territory  is  not 
necessary  to  perfect  the  title  of  a  discoverer  (for  surely  the  rule  is 
not  less  liberal  in  his  case)  seems  to  be  admitted  by  Lord  Salisbury 
in  his  despatch  to  Sir  Julian  Pauncefote,  of  May  18, 1896.     He  said : 

"All  the  great  nations  in  both  hemispheres  claim  and  are  prepared  to 
defend  their  right  to  vast  tracts  of  territory  which  they  have  in  no  sense 
occupied  and  often  have  not  fully  explored." 

|<  There  may  be,  in  some  cases,  a  question  as  to  the  extent  of 
the  discovery;  for  the  discovery  of  a  locality  is  not  necessarily 
a  discovery  of  all  the  contiguous  lands  without  regard  to  their 
extent;  but  there  can  be  no  such  question  here.  Guiana  was  a 
unit,  and  the  discovery  included  all  of  its  boundaries. 

This  question  is  discussed  by  Twiss  (Law  of  Nations,  Sec. 
122-3).     He  says: 

"  Prior  discovery  gave  a  right  to  occupy,  provided  that  occupancy  took 
place  within  a  reasonable  time,  and  was  ultimately  followed  by  permanent 
settlement  and  by  cultivation  of  the  soil." 


214  SPANISH  TIl'LE. 

"The  question  as  to  the  extent  of  territory  over  which  the  discovery 
of  a  part  gives  rise  to  the  right  of  occupancy,  may  receive  a  solution  by 
reference  to  the  principles  of  law,  which  decide  to  what  extent  natural  pos- 
session must  go  in  order  to  give  a  title  to  more  than  is  actually  inhabited. 
It  is  not  necessary,  in  order  to  constitute  the  occupant  of  a  thing  the  legal 
proprietor  of  it,  that  he  should  have  natural  possession  of  the  whole  of  it; 
if  he  has  possession  of  a  part,  which  cannot  be  separated  from  the  whole,  he 
is  in  possession  of  the  whole." 

He  next  quotes  from  Vattel  (Sec.  124): 

"  It  may  happen  that  a  nation  is  contented  with  possessing  only  certain 
places,  or  appropriating  to  itself  certain  rights  in  a  country  which  has  not 
an  owner,  without  being  solicitous  to  take  possession  of  the  whole  country. 
In  thi^  case,  another  nation  may  take  possession  of  what  the  first  has 
neglected;  but  this  cannot  be  done  without  allowing  all  the  rights  acquired 
by  the  first  to  subsist  in  their  full  and  absolute  independence." 

It  is  not  a  question  of  the  right  of  the  discoverer  to  possess  all 
that  he  has  discovered — that  cannot  be  questioned;  bnt  of  his  right 
to  extend  the  limits  of  his  discovery,  to  go  beyond  to  a  natural 
boundary,  or  to  include  a  place,  beyond  the  limits  of  the  dis- 
covery, that  is  necessary  to  the  security  of  the  discovered  region. 

Twiss  s{)eak:s  of  "  the  discovery  of  a  part,''^  and  of  the  lands 
beyond  the  part  discovered,  that  may  be  regarded  as  attendant. 

But  in  the  case  of  Guiana  the  Spanish  discovery  embraced  the 
whole  of  it.  The  great  rivers  that  define  its  eastern  and  western 
limits— the  Amazon  and  the  Orinoco — and  the  Essequibo  between 
them,  had  been  entered  and  navigated,  and  landings  made  upon 
their  banks.  In  the  search  for  Eldorado  Spain  had  sent  many 
expeditions  into  the  interior.  It  seems  that  as  early  as  1561 
Aguirre,  a  Spanish  explorer,  passed  by  boat  from  the  Amazon  to 
the  Orinoco,  through  that  "double-ended  stream,  the  Casiquiare," 
and  down  the  Orinoco  to  the  sea.  The  Amazon  had  already  been 
followed  to  its  mouth  by  other  Spanish  explorers,  and  the  entire 
aeacoast  had  been  traced,  thus  completing  the  circumnavigation 
of  Guiana. 

These  acts,  we  maintain,  effected  not  only  a  discovery,  but  an 
appropriation  of  the  whole  province;  but,  if  they  can  be  treated 


DISCOVERY.  215 

only  as  completing  the  discovery  of  the  province,  they  at  least 
prove  discovery  of  the  whole  of  Guiana;  and  the  settlements  after- 
wards made  are  to  be  taken  as  an  entry  upon  a  part  for  the  whole. 
It  is  not,  then,  a  qitestion  as  to  "the  extent  of  territory  over 
which  the  discovery  of  a  part  gives  rise  to  the  right  of  occupancy," 
for  here  was  no  discovery  of  a  part.  No  other  nation  has  ventured 
to  claim  the  discovery  of  any  part  of  Guidna.  The  Dutch  title 
and  the  British  title  must  be  rested  upon  Spain's  abandonment  or 
upon  a  conquest  and  cession. 

Our  object  here  is  to  show  that  Spain's  settlerrien'ts  and  all  of 
her  acts  of  sovereignty  had  reference,  not  to  localities  in  Guiana, 
but  to  Guiana.  The  world  at  that  time  was  afire  with  the  lust  of 
gold,  more  than  of  fields.  It  was  Guiana — not  its  borders,  not 
localities— the  possession  of  which  was  sought.  The  Eldorado, 
whose  fabled  riches  drew  Raleigh  and  other  adventurers  again 
and  again  to  the  Orinoco,  was  in  the  interior;  every  recorded 
attempt  to  reach  it  was  from  the  Orinoco,  and  that  entrance  was 
promptly  occupied  by  Spain. 

Santo  Thome,  often  attacked,  sometimes  destroyed,  always 
restored  and  strengthened,  was  declared  by  the  acts  of  all 
European  navigators  to  be  Eldorado's  gateway,  and  its  destruc- 
tion a  condition  of  every  successful  foray  into  the  interior. 

Can  there  be  found,  in  this  shortly  told  story  of  Spain's  rela- 
tions to  Guiana,  anything  that  can  be  made  the  basis  of  an  infer- 
ence that  she  intended  to  or  had  abandoned  any  part  of  the 
province?  On  the  other  hand,  did  not  these  facts  make  it  plain  to 
every  other  European  nation  that  any  settlement  by  any  of  them 
in  Guiana  would  be  an  invasion  of  Spanish  territory?  In  fact  all 
the  expeditions  of  other  nations  that  went  there  went  in  contem- 
plation of  an  armed  conflict  with  the  Spanish  forces.  Spain  com- 
plied with  the  conditions  named  by  Westlake  {ante,  pp.  204-5); 
made  known  her  "  intention  of  deriving  the  full  benefit  "  of  her  dis- 
covery.    The  Dutch  did  not  enter  "  under  a  reasonable  belief  that 


216  SPANtSH  TtTLK. 

if  (the  province  of  Guiana)  had  not  been  appropriated  by  a  foreign 
power."    Spain's  title  was  not  "  sprung"  on  them. 

Having  now  considered  the  rules  relating  to  title  by  discovery, 
and  the  perfecting  of  that  title  by  an  actual  occupancy,  let  us  next 
see  how  the  rule  as  to  occupation  has  been  applied  by  the  Great 
Powers  ;  what  they  have  regarded  as  a  sufficient  occupation  of 
new  countries,  and  the  constructive  reach  they  have  given  to  their 
settlements.  This  subject  is  discussed  by  Chief  Justice  Marshall 
in  the  extracts  we  have  given,  but  some  further  illustrations  may 
be  useful. 

We  affirm  that  no  one  of  the  great  nations  that  participated  in 
the  settlement  of  America  ever  allowed,  as  applicable  to  its  own 
discoveries  and  settlements,  the  limitations  which  Great  Britain 
seeks  to  apply  to  the  Spanish  settlements  in  Guiana. 

Edmund   Burke,   speaking  of    the    European  settlements  in 

America,  in  1757,  said: 

"  We  derive  our  rights  in  America  from  the  discovery  of  Sebastian  Cabot, 
who  first  made  the  Northern  Continent  in  1497.  The  fact  is  sufficiently 
certain  to  establish  a  right  to  our  settlements  in  North  America."  (Winsor, 
Nar.  and  Crit.  Hist,  vol.  iii,  p.  1.) 

But  Great  Britain  effected  no  permanent  settlement  within  the 
limits  of  the  discovery  until  1607,  when  the  colony  at  Jamestown 
was  founded — followed  by  Plymouth  in  1620.  More  than  a  full 
century  elapsed  after  discovery  before  Great  Britain  effected  her 
first  permanent  settlement  in  North  America. 

These  English  settlements  were,  for  a  long  time,  mere  spots  on 
the  coast,  many  hundred  miles  apart,  and  reaching  only  a  few 
miles  into  the  interior.  And  two  centuries  later,  down  to  the  era 
(say  1850-60)  when  transcontinental  roads  and  railways  became 
near  certainties,  the  explorer  might  journey  for  a  thousand  or 
fifteen  hundred  miles  west  of  the  Mississippi  and  in  the  corre- 
sponding portion  of  Canada  without  encountering  traces  of  civil- 
ized man,  and  in  constant  peril  from  unsubjected  savages.  Down 
to  the  period  of  the  discovery  of  gold  (1848),  the  Pacific  coast, 


DISCOVERY.  217 

north  of  what  is  now  San  Francisco,  for  some  thousand  miles  had 
no  white  inhabitants  save  two  or  three  small  settlements,  as  at 
the  mouth  of  the  Columbia,  and  in  the  Vancouver  region,  with 
one  or  two  Russian  posts  farther  north. 

In  1845  an  Englishman  could  have  entered  from  Canada  and 
gone  to  Mexico  without  encountering  a  single  white  man,  unless 
it  might  be  the  Mormons  at  Salt  Lake  City.  A  Russian  could,  in 
the  same  way,  have  ti-aversed  British  Columbia  from  Alaska  to 
Winnipeg. 

In  1870  the  vast  continent  of  Australia,  which  the  English  had 
held  or  claimed  to  have  held  for  one  hundred  years,  had  never 
been  traversed  from  east  to  west;  only  one  or  two  attempts  at 
exploration  had  reached  over  a  hundred  miles  from  salt  water; 
even  its  coasts,  except  in  one  or  two  stretches,  were  virtually 
unknown  and  unvisited.  Leaving  the  coast  settlements,  the  ex- 
plorer could  go  fifteen  hundred  miles  in  almost  any  direction 
towards  the  interior  without  touching  ground  previously  trod  by 
a  white  man,  and  if  he  could  reach  the  northern  or  western  seacoast 
he  would,  in  most  parts,  find  no  white  man  nearer  than  those 
whom  he  had  left.  The  area  of  the  continent  of  Australia  is 
3,000,000  square  miles,  about  eight  times  that  of  Veneztiela. 

"  Western  Australia  "  has  an  area  of  975,000  square  miles  (two 
and  a  half  times  that  of  Venezuela),  but  in  1892  its  population 
was  only  60,000.  The  newspapers  of  a  very  recent  date  contain  a 
report  of  an  address  delivered  by  M.  de  Rougemont  before  the 
Anthropological  section  of  the  British  Association,  in  London,  in 
which  he  gives  an  account  of  his  long  residence  among  the 
Indians  of  the  Cambridge  Gulf  region  of  Australia.  He  found 
there  a  vast  region  into  which  no  trace  of  British  occupation  or 
influence  had  penetrated. 

Yet  no  one  supposes  that  these  uninhabited  stretches  consti- 
tute terra  nullius,  or  unpossessed  land,  open  to  be  acquired  by 
whatever  nation  might  choose  to  go  there.  For  they  formed  part 
of  a  territory  which,  as  a  whole,  the  dominant  nation  possessed. 


218  SPANISH  TITLE. 

The  whole  Oiegoii  dispute,  from  181Y  onwards,  was  based  by 
both  sides  upon  the  proposition  that  all  the  northwest  belonged  to 
England  or  to  the  United  States,  save  only  the  seacoast  strip 
which  Russia  held;  and  they  consecrated  this  idea  by  the  bound- 
ary treaty  of  1846. 

This  division  of  1846  rested  on  the  rights  of  1817  or  earlier;  yet 
even  in  1846  the  entire  partitioned  region  was  less  marked  by  the 
white  man's  presence  and  the  white  man's  power  than  Guiana 
had  been  marked  by  Spain  in  1620. 

The  English  view  about  effectivity  of  occupation  is  also  specifi 
cally  ilhistrated  in  New  Zealand.  The  area  of  the  two  islands  i 
a  trifle  over  100,000  square  miles,  that  is,  almost  exactly  the  sam 
as  that  of  the  Kingdom  of  Italy,  including  Sicily.  In  1843  itj 
European  population  was  i;^.,000,  collected  in  a  few  centr 
(Stanford,  p.  578).  But  England  has  always  insisted  that  it  ha 
a  title  to  the  two  islands  by  "occupation*';  and  it  took  thii 
ground  during  the  first  year  of  actual  occupation. 

But  we  have  specific  instances  of  the  recognition  by  Englan 
and  Holland,  in  dealing  with  America  between  1580  and  1680 
that  a  new  country  held  as  a  whole  is,  in  law,  deemed  to  b 
"  occupied  "  in  all  its  parts,  though  its  actual  settlements  are  fev\l 
and  far  apart.  The  value  of  such  a  recognition  by  our  two  oppo 
nents,  for  that  country  and  at  that  time,  is  obvious. 

Raleigh's  charter  was  dated  March  25,  1584,  and  confirmed  b; 
Parliament,  with  some  modifications,  in  December,  1584  (Maim 
Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  N.  S.,  ii,  172;  Jeze,  p.  126,  note).  It  named  no  locus, 
but  purported,  in  the  language  almost  invariably  used  for  tw^ 
hundred  years  and  substantially  copied  from  the  Bull  of  1494,  t 
authorize  him  to  plant  colonies  upon  "such  remote,  heathen  am 
barbarous  lands,  not  actually  possessed  by  any  Christian  prin 
nor  inhabited  by  Christian  people,"  as  he  might  discover.  Bu 
what  is  the  limit  of  the  "possession"  secured  by  settlement 
The  patent  proceeds  to  express  Englisii  official  views  in  the  sani 
way  that  the  Gilbert  patent  of  1578  had  expressed  them.     It 


blSCOVERV^.  219 

authorizes  him,  in  language  repeated  from  Gilbert's  patent,  to 
"repel"  all  persons  who  come  to  inhabit  within  two  hundred 
leagues  of  the  places  where  he  or  his  colonists  should  make  their 
dwelling,  and  gives  him  "jurisdiction  "  within  those  limits. 

These  two  charters  were  given  by  Queen  Elizabeth;  the  one 
two  years  before  and  the  other  four  years  after  the  announce- 
ment by  her  of  Great  Britain's  position,  as  given  in  the  British 
Counter-Case  (p.  44). 

Such  was  England's  view  of  the  "  scope"  of  a  settlement  and 
the  title  it  would  confer.  Now  from  Santo  Thome  to  the  Esse- 
quibo  was  about  one  hundred  leagues;  that  is,  half  the  distance 
named  in  the  English  charters;  and  other  Spanish  occupation  soon 
much  diminished  that  distance. 

On  April  10,  1606,  on  the  petition  of  Hukluyt,  James  I.  granted 
to  new  companies,  successors  of  Raleigh's  original,  the  territory 
from  34°  to  45°  latitude;  that  is,  from  Cape  Fear,  at  the  southern 
boundary  of  North  Carolina,  to  New  Brunswick; — from  34°  to  40° 
to  the  "  London  "  or  Virginia  Co.,  and  from  40°  northward  to  the 
northern,  then  or  afterwards  the  "  New  England  Co.,"  established 
at  Plymouth,  New  England  (Palfrey  Hist.  N.  E.,  i,  190,  note). 
These  grants  covered,  say  760  miles  in  latitude,  and  over  1,100 
on  the  coast  (Winsor,  iii,  127).  But  the  only  settlements  to  hold 
it  were  those  on  or  close  to  the  James. 

If  this  goes  beyond  the  just  limits  of  the  law  of  that  period, 
it  is  not  for  Great  Britain  to  say  so.  Her  views  of  international 
law  ought  not  to  be  wholly  governed  by  her  interests.  It  cer- 
tainly goes  far  beyond  any  claim  that  can  arise  in  reference  to 
jGuiana.  For  it  is  one  thing  to  hold  a  width  of  760  miles  by  one 
igroup  of  settlements  at  its  middle  point,  with  no  other  settle- 
,raents  by  the  claiming  nation  on  the  whole  continent — which  is 
the  case  of  the  King  James  and  Hakluyt  charters — and  it  is  quite 
another  thing  to  assert  against  Spain,  possessing  and  holding 
ivirtually  the  whole  northern  part  of  South  America,  that  a  corner 
piece,  itself  containing  settlements  and  frequently  overrun  by  its 


220  St>ANISH  flTLE. 

expeditions,  was  iei^ra  nulUiis.  It  should  also  be  kept  in  mind 
that  when  the  Dutch  settled  at  the  Essequibo,  Portugal  was  under 
the  Spanish  crown,  and  the  Portuguese  settlements  on  the 
Amazon  are  therefore  to  be  accounted  at  that  time  as  Spanish 
settlements. 

When  we  read  these  threeEnghsh  charters  we  must  agree  that 
the  Spanish  claim  for  Guiana /aZ/s/ar  within  the  doctrine  of  the 
period  as  asserted  and  put  in  practice  by  England.  | 

It  is  true  that  it  might  be  physically  possible  for  another  nation 
to  settle  on  a  part  of  one  of  these  large  tracts  and  maintain  its  pos- 
session for  a  long  term  of  years;  and  in  such  a  case  it  would  get  a 
title.  But  it  would  be  by  prescription,  in  derogation  of  the  first, 
and  adverse  to  it;  it  would  not  be  an  occupation  as  of  terra  nul- 
lius. 

Between  1626  and  1670  the  question  of  the  limits  of  attributive 
legal  possession  and  right  beyond  an  actual  settlement  arose  be- 
tween England  and  Holland,  the  latter  claiming  on  behalf  of  the 
very  Dutch  West  India  Company  which  made  the  Guiana  settle- 
ments. 

Here,  therefore,  we  have  our  two  consecutive  opposing  inter- 
ests declaring  the  law  of  the  period  upon  the  questions  we  have  to 
consider;  and  while  they  differed  as  to  the  application  of  the  rules 
and  neither  was  always  consistent,  yet  they  agreed  that  a  settle- 
ment, small  in  actual  extent,  would  constitute  occupation  of  a  largo 
region  if  it  had  no  previous  occupant,  actual  or  constructive;  that 
is,  if  it  were  terra  nullius.  The  documents  we  shall  refer  to  are 
printed  in  ^'Documents  relating  to  the  Colonial  History  of  the 
State  of  New  York,^'  vols,  i,  ii,  published  by  the  State,  and  edited 
by  Mr.  Brodhead.     Some  of  the  papers  are  also  in  Aitzema. 

England  claimed  title  from  Carolina  to  the  extreme  north  by 
virtue  of  the  discoveries  of  Cabot. 

Virginia  claimed,  under  the  first  English  charter,  of  1584,  two 
hundred  leagues  north  from  the  James  River  settlement  in  Vir- 
ginia, and  under  the  second  charter  as  far  as  Halifax. 


DISCOVERY.  221 

Now  the  mouth  of  the  Hudson  River  (New  York)  is  a  little  less 
than  one  hundred  leagues  (three  hundred  miles)  from  the  Virginia 
settlement. 

In  1620-21  England  had  established  Plymouth  Colony  on  Mas- 
sachusetts Bay,  a  trifle  under  two  hundred  miles  from  New  York, 
in  a  direct  line,  and  about  three  hundred  by  water  along  the  coast. 
The  Royal  Grant  of  Nov.  3,  1620,  zo  The  Council  for  New  England, 
was  from  40°  to  48°  latitude,  and  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific; 
the  colony  at  Plymouth,  Mass.,  got  its  territorial  rights  by  a  sub- 
grant  under  this  (June  1/11,  1621),  approved  by  the  King  (Palfrey, 
Hist.  New  Eng.,  i,  190-4;  Winsor,  iii,  275,  295),  as  did  also  the 
colony  of  Massachusetts  Bay  on  March  19,  1628  (Palfrey,  i,  288, 
29<»;  Winsor,  iii,  309-10). 

Hendrick  Hudson,  in  1609,  was  the  tirst  white  man  to  enter 
New  York  Harbor  and  the  Hudson.  After  some  inconsiderable 
efforts  the  Dutch  West  India  Company  settled  "  New  Netherland," 
now  New  York.  Their  main  settlement  was  where  New  York 
City  now  is,  but  after  a  time  they  built  small  forts  as  far  east  as 
the  Connecticut  River,  "took  possession"  of  Long  Island  and  es- 
tablished some  villages  at  its  western  end  (Brodhead,  Docs.,  vol.  ii, 
pp.  133  et  seq.). 

The  English  antagonized  them  from  the  outset.  Before  1620 
they  had  warned  off  the  few  Dutch  at  Manhattan  (Palfrey,  Hist. 
New  Eng.,  i,  236);  and  in  1622  the  English  Government  addressed 
a  formal  remonstrance  to  the  States  General  "  against  intrusions  in 
New  England  "  {ib.,  23T).  In  1627  the  Plymouth  Governor  warned 
the  Dutch  that  the  Plymouth  territory  reached  to  40°  latitude  (a 
few  miles  north  of  the  southern  boundary  of  Pennsylvania  and 
about  one  hundred  and  fifty  miles  south  of  New  York),  and 
forbade  them  to  inti'ude  upon  it.  The  English  also,  but  after  the 
Dutch. had  actually  made  their  permanent  settlement,  approached 
it  as  far  as  Providence  and  New  Haven,  the  latter  seventy  miles 
from  New  York  {ib.,  236).  They  took  possession  of  Long  Island, 
tore  down  the  Dutch  Company's  coat-of-arms  from  their  posses- 


223  SPANISH  TITLE. 

sion  posts,  and  set  a  fool's  head  in  their  place,  and  founded  two 
villages  at  the  east  end  of  Long  Island  (Brodhead,  Docs.,  vol.  ii, 
p.  135). 

Each  of  the  contending  parties  claimed  priority  of  discovery 
for  its  nation;  but  each  also  claimed  that  its  settlement  gave  it,  in 
law,  the  possession  and  the  title  to  all  the  unsettled  land  between 
the  actual  towns  of  Plymoidh,  New  York  and  Jamestown. 

The  discussion  just  referred  to  was  terminated  by  what  was 
called  the  "  Treaty  of  1650,"  that  is,  a  local  agreement  forced 
upon  the  Dutch  hy  the  strength  of  the  New  England  colonies. 
This  agreement  secured  to  the  English  a  peaceful  occupation 
east  of  the  Connecticut,  though  it  did  not  formally  recognize 
their  title.     {See  Brodhead,  Docs.,  vol.  i,  pp.  459,  541,  567,  611). 

In  1660  the  discussion  between  the  two  governments  became 
acrimonious;  the  principal  papers  are  in  Brodhead,  vol.  ii,  and 
Ailzema.  The  controversy  was  ended  in  the  general  war,  when 
England  conquered  New  Netherland,  and  the  peace  of  Breda, 
which  terminated  it  (1667),  left  this  region  in  the  possession  of 
England,  But  tlie  papers  exchanged  in  the  course  of  the  dis- 
cussion make  it  clear  that  both  parties  admitted  as  sound  certain 
principles  of  law,  among  which  are  these: 

Both  parties  claimed  by  right  of  discovery;  the  English  under 
Cabot  and  the  Dutch  as  originally  subjects  of  the  King  of  Spain, 
and  as  holding  the  light  of  Spain  by  the  cession  contained  in 
the  peace  of  Munster  (1648).  Neither  of  these  discoveries  was 
followed  by  any  occupation  north  of  Florida  or  Virginia  until 
1600;    that  is,  for  more  than  a  hundred  years. 

E;ich  also  relied  on  occupation,  after  1600;  and  they  referio.l 
both  to  occitpatio  or  primitive  occupation  of  a  terra  uullius,  and 
long  continued  occupation  constituting  title  by  prescription. 
They  both  asserted  or  admitted  that  one  or  a  very  few  actual 
settlements  would  or  might  constitute,  in  law,  a  possession  or 
occupation,  perfecting  title  to  a  large  region  of  terra  nullius.  This, 
they  conceived,  did  not  apply  to  the  case  of  a  nation  which  was 


DISCOVERY.  223 

the  second  to  make  its  entry  on  lands  which  the  rule  had  already 
placed  in  such  constructive  possession  of  another;  such  second 
entry  was  in  the  nature  of  a  dispossession;  and  it  extended  in 
law  no  further  than  it  did  in  fact.  When,  in  the  course  of  dis- 
icussion,  the  shoe  pinched  a  little  on  the  one  party  or  the  other, 
neither  was  very  consistent;  but  the  papers  show  that  each 
itside  appreciated  the  law  to  be  as  we  have  stated  it. 

On  November  5,  1660,  the  Dutch  West  India  Company  sent  to 
ithe  States  General  a  long  account  of  the  controversy,  as  a  basis 
tor  complaints  about  the  English  usurpations. 

New  Netherland  originally,  they  say,  began  at  latitude  38® — 
which  is  in  Virginia,  south  of  Washington,  and  half  way  between 
Itiat  city  and  James  Rivei-,  the  seat  of  Raleigh's  colony.  Its  true 
'northern  limit,  they  allege,  included  Cape  Cod;  that  is,  it  reached 
jto  Massachusetts  Bay,  which  they  had  entered  and  explored. 
The  paper,  in  Brodhead,  Docs.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  133-134,  says; 

"  This  province  of  New  Netherland  was  then  immediately  occupied  and 
taken  possession  of  by  the  said  Company,  according  as  circumstances  per- 
fiiitied,  as  is  the  case  in  all  new  undertakings.'^  For  wliich  purpose  they 
juused  to  be  built  there,  since  the  year  1623,  four  forts,  to  wit:  two  on  the 
North  river,  namely,  Amsterdam  and  Orange;  one  on  the  South  river, 
ailed  Nassaw,  and  the  last  on  the  Fresh  [Connecticut]  river,  called  the 
itLope.  From  the  beginning  a  garrison  has  been  always  stationed  and 
naintaiued  in  all  these  forts. 

Tiie  Company  had  created  these  forts  both  Southward  and  Northward, 
lot  only  with  a  view  to  close  and  appropriate  the  aforesaid  rivers,  but  like- 
vise  as  far  as  title  by  occupation  tends,  the  lands  around  them  and  within 
lieir  borders  (being  then  about  sixty  leagues  along  the  coast),  and  on  the 
■her  side  of  the  rivers,  to  possess,  to  declare  as  their  own  and  to  preserve 
iiiist  all  foreign  or  domestic  nations,  who  woukl  endeavor  to  usurp  the 
11110,  contrary  to  the  Companys  will  and  pleasure." 

They  intended,  they  say,  to  build   forts  behind  Cape  Cod,  but 
lieir  circumstances  did  not  permit  of  this,  and  they  never  did  it. 

*Tlu;  pliraae  is  a  happy  one  to  express  the  recjuirements  of  the  law;  and  therefore 
lien  Spain,  beginning  with  true  discovery,  and  ending  with  making  the  country  Spanish, 
rogressed  with  a  vigor  which  has  astonislied  the  world,  it  complied  with  the  strictest  rules 
f  the  law.     The  Dutch  intruded  in  Guayana  and  acquired  a   title;  but  conquest,  cession, 

prescription  supports  this,  not  occupalio. 


224  SPANISH  TITLE. 

The  New  England  English  have  usurped  upon  them,  claiming 
under  a  patent  from  Charles  I. ;  but  this  they  assert  cannot  dis- 
place the  earlier  title  of  the  Dutch.  Elsewhere  the  Dutch  Co. 
mentions  41^°  as  their  limit. 

Such  an  extent  of  right  from  a  single  settlement  ivas  evidently 
then  a  familiar  if  not  an  accepted  doctrine;  but  a  prior  occupatio 
based  on  the  James  River  settlement  was  impliedly  admitted  to 
be  extensive  enough  in  law  to  restrict  the  later  New  Netherland 
claim. 

But  even  in  that  view  the  Dutch  say  that  they  had  a  better 
title;  for  they  came  to  America  while  "subjects  of  the  King  of 
Spain,  first  finder  and  founder  of  this  new  American  world,  wh(> 
by  the   conclusion  of  the   peace "   (Munster,  1648)  made   over   t( 
them  his  title.     But  this  argument,  which  extended  Spain's  righ 
by  discovery  to  the  whole  of  the   new   world,  they   admit  to  b« 
"rather  forced,"  and  is,  they  say,  unnecessary,  for  they  have 
title  of  their  own  as  "first  discoverers  and  possessors." 

January  21,  1664  (^6.,  p.  226),  they  ask  the  States  General  t( 
fix  the  limits  of  New  Netherland  "along  the  coast  from  37] 
degrees  unto  41^,  and,  furthermore,  landward  as  far  as  men  cai 
travel."  Latitude  37^  degrees  marks,  virtually,  the  actual  Vir- 
ginia settlement ;  41^  degrees  means  Plymouth,  that  is,  theii 
view  is  that  the  first  occupatio  (which  was  what  they  claimed)  ij 
displaced  by  the  second  comer  only  so  far  as  the  latter  physically 
extends,  which  is  good  law. 

Sir  George  Downing,  British  Ambassador,  sent  a  memorial  ii 
reply.  In  answer  the  States  General,  on  February  9,  1665,  trans 
mitted  these  comments,  addressed  to  them  by  their  Committee  oi 
Relations  with  England  {ib.,  p.  325): 

"  The  English  have  no  other  title  to  the  jmssession  of  what  they  hold 
namely,  New  Belgium,  than  those  of  this  nation  have  to  New  Netherland 
to  wit,  the  right  of  occupation  ;  hecause  all  those  countries  being  desert 
uninhabited  and  waste,  as  if  belonging  to  nobody,  became  the  property  o 
those  who  have  been  the  first  occupants  of  them.     'Tis   thus  the  EnglisI 


DISCOVERY.  225 

have  uccupied,  and  this  is  the  title  by  whicli  they  possess  New  England,  as 
those  of  this  nation,  New  Netherland.  The  right  which  the  Enghsh  found 
on  the  letters  patent,  wherein  their  king  grants  such  a  vast  extent  to  the 
limits  of  the  English  so  as  to  include  also  all  the  possessions  of  this  nation,  is 
as  ridiculous  as  if  your  High  Mightinesses  bethought  yourselves  of  includ- 
ing all  New  England  in  the  patent  you  would  grant  to  the  West  India 
Company.  Therefore,  a  continued  possession  for  such  a  long  series  of  years 
must  confer  on  this  nation  a  title  which  cannot  be  questioned  with  aiiv 
aj»pearance  of  reason."* 

The  reply  of  the  British  Ambassador,  April  T,  1665  («&.,  p.  332), 
has  been  used  in  another  connection  {ante,  p.  193).  He  as- 
serted that  the  English  had  entered  under  patents,  and  that 
their  settlements  were  to  be  taken  as  a  possession  of  all  lands 
within  the  bounds  described  in  the  patents;  that  it  was  not 
necessary  that  every  part  should  be  effectively  occupied. 

The  States  General  rejoined  (^6.,  p.  37J)): 

The  patent  of  the  King  of  England  cannot  "prejudice  the 
rights  of  the  subjects  of  other  Kings  and  States;"  neither  does 
tlie  patent  prove  possession. 

The  States  General  next  tuin  to  the  question  we  have  be- 
fore us.  They  first  quote  [ib.,  p.  380)  from  the  British  Ambas- 
sador's paper: 

"  '  But,' he  say?:  ''tis  not  riMtuisite  that  men  should  inhabit  every  in- 
dividual spot;  it  is  enough  that  they  had  taken  possession  of  a  part  Avithin 
the  limits  of  their  Patent,  and  so  acquire  the  remainder  mentioned  in  their 
Patent.'  This  would  well  apply  to  any  places  which  are  not  taken  pos- 
-sioii  of,  and  nol  embraced  within  tlutxe  parlH  that  are  jjosf^es^ed;  *  but  in- 
asmnch  as  another  has  full  fifty  years'  adverse  possession,  it  does  not  enter 
into  consideration,  except  to  gloze  over  such  violent  usurpations  as  are 
here  perpetrated;  it  being  notorious  that  a  thing  can  be  possessed  by  only 
one.  We  shall  willingly  concede  to  the  Ambassador,  if  the  English  in 
Ceylon  or  other  Dutch  Colonies,  possessed  a  country  as  the  Dutch  have  in 


*  /.  <?.,  the  rule  of  extended  possession  of  a  wiiverH'Um  applies  to  regions  wliere  there  is 
no  previous  possession  in  law  by  another.  But  when  it  encounters  previous  possession  by 
another  it  must  yield  ;  and  it  must  do  this  equally  whether  tliat  previous  possession  be  by 
actual  physical  occupation,  or  be  merely  legal  possession  by  the  rule  of  extension  from  a 
settlement. 


220  SPANISH   TITLE. 

tlie  Northern  part  of  America,  that  the  sole  right  which  is  here  claimed, 
should  belong  to  them.' 

That  Great  Britain  gave  her  full  consent  to  the  doctrine  that 
a  possession  of  a  part,  in  the  name  of  the  whole,  effected  a 
good  occupation  of  the  whole,  and  herself  sought  to  apply  the 
doctrine  to  Guiana  itself,  appears  from  this  incident:  In  IOO8 
Harcourt  visited  the  coast  of  Guiana  and  attempted  to  seize  it 
for  his  sovereign.     This  is  his  account  of  the  method  used: 

"  I  took  possession  of  the  Land,  by  "Jiirfe  and  Twigge,  in  bei)alfe  of  our 
Sovereign e  Lord  King  James;  I  took  the  said  possession  of  a  pari,  i)i  name 
of  the  whole  Continent  of  Guiana,  lying  betwixt  the  rivers  of  Amazones, 
and  Orenoque,  not  beeing  actually  possessed,  aud  inhabited  by  any  other 
Christian  Prince  or  State;  wherewith  the  Indians  seemed  to  be  well  content 
and  pleased"  (V.  C-C,  vol.  ii,  p.  55). 

Upon  the  strength  of  this,  the  King  (James  L),  granted  to 
Harcourt  a  charter,  hut,  manifestly  recognizing  at  the  time  that 
the  territory  west  of  the  Essequibo  was  Spanish,  he  limited  the 
grant  to  the  territory  between  the  Amazon  and  the  Essequibo. 

It  appears  also,  from  the  later  history  of  this  incident,  that 
the  claim  which  Great  Britain  is  now,  as  the  successor  of  the 
Dutch,  setting  forward  — that  in  the  early  years  of  the  17th  cen- 
tury the  coast  of  Guiana  was  terra  nullius  and  not  Spanish — Great 
Britain  at  that  time  did  not  maintain  in  behalf  of  her  own  sub- 
jects, who  had  attempted  settlements  on  that  coast. 

Upon  a  protest  from  the  Spanish  ambassador,  based  upon  the 

ground  that  Spain  had  before  appropriated  the  region  to  which 

the  Harcourt  grant  related,  proceedings  under  it  were  suspended. 

Later  (1623-25)  a  communication  was  addressed  to  the  King  on 

behalf  of  these  patentees,  setting  forth  reasons  for  maintaining 

the  rights  of  England,  in  which  it  was  said: 

"  Your  Majesty's  subjects  many  yeares  since  found  that  couutrie  free 
from  any  Christian  Prince  or  State  or  the  subjects  of  any  of  them." 
"  Your  Majesty's  subjects  with  the  faire  leave  aud  good  liking  of  the  native 
inhabitants  have  tlieis  13  or  14  yeares  coutinuallie  remayned  in  the  said 
Kiver  [the  Amazon]  and  also  in  the  River  of  Wiapoco,  being  upon  the 


DISCOVERY.  227 

same  Coaste."  "  Your  Ma""  hath  bine  pleased  to  gramite  sevcrall  Commis- 
sions for  these  parts,  and  (w  •"  good  advice  of  your  Councell)  hath  granted 
two  several!  letters  Patients  the  one  in  the  11""  of  your  l\aigne  of  England, 
the  other,  the  rT*\"  "  The  Count  of  Gondomer  [the  Spanish  Ambassador] 
did  bouldlie  and  most  confidentlie  affirme  that  his  Master  had  the  actuall 
and  present  possession  of  theis  parts:  whereupon  he  obtained  of  your  Ma"* 
a  suspence  and  stay  of  all  our  proceedings  for  a  tyme.  About  two  yeares 
and  a  halfe  afterward  the  said  Embas.'adour  caused  about  300  men  to  be 
sent  into  the  River  of  Amazones,  then  to  beginn  the  foresaid  possession 
and  to  destroy  the  Ena:lisli  and  Dutch  there  abideinge"  (V.  C-C,  vol.  ii, 
p.  55). 

In  1620  Harcourt,  in  a  new  edition  of  his  "  Relations  "  gives 
this  account  of  I  he  incident  (p.  7): 

"  And  here  I  think  it  tit  to  give  notice  of  the  dealing  of  a  Spanish 
Ambassadonr  (whilst  he  resided  in  Enyland)  against  these  men  [the 
English  colonists  in  Guiana],  after  he  had  procured  them  to  bee  altogether 
abandoned  by  their  ownc  Country,  by  his  false  suggcssions,  and  violent 
importunity."' 

I  These  historical  incidents  illustrate  the  stretch  that  was  given, 
both  by  Great  Britain  and  the  Netherlands,  to  the  constructive 
possession  attributable  to  a  small  actual  occupation  when  the  New 
World  was  being  settled.     No  one  of  the  great  powers  is  more 

,  distinctly  committed  to  the  doctrine  that  vast  stretches  of  unoc- 
cupied territory  may  be  rightfully  claimed  by  constructive  occupa- 

j  tion,   as  appurtenant  to  small  settlements,  than   Great  Britain. 

'  Nor  has  she  ever  failed,  when  the  facts  offered  any  justification 

I  for  it,  to  put  forward  a  title  by  discovery.  In  the  present  case 
she  insists  upon  a  very  strict  rule  as  to  Spanish  settlements,  but 
she  saves  her  record,  in  part,  by  demanding  for  herself  the  broad 
effect  she  has  been  wont  to  give  to  her  own  settlements. 

Perhaps  we  should  say  a  word  here  about  the  reasonable  period, 
though  we  hold  that  if  the  discoverer  is  the  first  to  make  an  actual 

II  settlement  the  question  cannot  be  raised. 
As  we  have  suggested  already,  the  thing  to  be  done  by  the  dis- 
coverer must  be  defined  before  we  can  say  what  time  should  be 
!    allotted  for  the  doing  of  it.     Is  the  thing  to  be  done  by  the  dis- 


228  SPANISH  TITLE. 

coverer,  in  order  to  perfect  his  title  to  the  whole  region  dis- 
covered, the  sending  of  "  a  force  or  a  colony  to  some  part  of  the 
land  intended  to  be  occupied  " — the  entry  upon  a  part  for  the 
whole— (as  Hall  says);  or  is  it  the  bringing  into  use,  by  the  dis- 
coverer, of  the  resources  of  the  whole  territory  and  the  subjecting 
of  all  its  savage  inhabitants  to  his  jurisdiction  and  control,  as  Great 
Britain  now  contends.  If  the  rule  is  as  first  stated,  and  1500 
is  taken  as  the  date  of  the  discovery  of  Guiana,  Spain  sent  out 
a  force  to  that  region  as  early  as  1530,  and  in  1591  established  a 
permanent  settlement. 

This  was  a  very  much  earlier  actual  occupation  after  discovery 
than  that  made  by  Great  Britain  in  North  America — the  timeli- 
ness and  effectiveness  of  which  she  has  asserted  and  main- 
tained. 

But  if  the  discoverer  cannot  enter  upon  a  part  for  the 
whole,  but  must  appropriate  the  resources  and  subject  the 
inhabitants  of  the  whole  region  in  order  to  perfect  his  title, 
the  reasonable  time  during  which  no  other  nation  can  in- 
trude must  be  greatly  extended.  And,  in  view  of  the  slow 
development  of  the  British  colonies  in  North  America,  it  can 
hardly  be  contended  here  that  Spain  should  have  appropriated 
the  resources  of  the  whole  of  Guiana  and  subdued  all  of  its 
savage  tribes  before  1613,  which  is  the  date  assigned  by  Great 
Britain  to  the  first  appearance  of  the  Dutch  in  Guiana.  Such 
a  demand  would  be  preposterous.  The  colonization  of  America 
did  not  proceed  on  such  a  schedule. 

Is  it  to  be  claimed  here  that  Spain  lost  Guiana  because 
within  twenty  years  after  her  first  permanent  settlement— if 
Santo  Thome  is  to  be  taken  as  the  first— she  had  not  used 
the  resources  of  the  entire  region,  and  subdued  all  of  its 
savage  tribes?  Santo  Thome,  settled  in  1591,  was  a  timely 
first  settlement;  and  can  the  entry  of  the  Dutch  in  1613  be 
defended  upon  the  ground  that  Spain  had  forfeited  her  in- 
choate  title,   because  she  had  not,  within  twenty  years,  so  ex- 


DISCOVERY.  229 

tended  her  settlements  as  to  effectively  occupy  the  whole  of 
Guiana?  Upon  any  conceivable  estimate  of  the  "  reasonable 
period,"  the  Dutch  entry  into  Guiana  was  premature  and 
wrongful. 

As  we  have  seen,  the  British  Case  concedes  that  all  of  the  con- 
ditions and  circumstances  affecting  the  territory  and  the  dis- 
coverer are  to  be  allowed  for  in  determining  whether  he  has  been 
reasonably  diligent. 

Of  some  only  of  these  retarding  conditions  we  shall  speak 
briefly.  In  the  aggregate  they  were  so  great  that,  but  for  the 
stimulus  received  from  the  belief  that  fabulous  stores  of  gold  were 
to  be  found,  they  would  have  further  delayed  the  settlement  of 
the  New  World  for  at  least  a  century.  The  seas  were  uncharted; 
no  coast  lights  gave  friendly  warning.  The  ships  were,  at  the 
'  first,  so  frail  that  one  like  them  could  not  now  find  a  crew,  even 
,  for  a  coast  voyage,  without  a  convoy.  A  voyage  from  Cadiz  to 
!  Santo  Thome  occupied  from  two  to  three  or  more  months,  and 
I  one  hundred  tons  was  a  large  cargo.*    All  of  these  wild  lands  were 

]  peopled  by  wilder  men.     Every  tree  and  jungle  was   a  citadel  of 
I 
fear.     The  painted  brave,  the  poisoned  arrow,  the  scalping  knife, 

I  the  fire— for  the  torture  or  for  the  feast— and  the  burning  home, 

^  were  waiting  in  fact,  or  in  the  fears  of  those  who  were  sought  as 

I  colonists.     In  Guiana    a    Spanish    force    of    47o    men    was    re- 

;  pulsed    by  the  Indians   with  a  loss  of    350.      In    St.   Lucia  a 

British  colony   was  utterly  destroyed  by  the  Caribs.     In  all  the 

American  settlements  the  colonists    carried  their   rifles  to  the 


*  "  Tlie  course  from  here  (Holland),  thither  and  back,  is  very  much  easier  than  from 
Spain,  for  it  takes  our  ships  usually  six  weeks  or  two  months  to  sail  from  here  thither."  (See 
U.  S.  Com.  Rep.,  vol.  ii,  p.  31.)  Cabeliau  set  sail  from  Trinidad  "  for  this  country"  (Hol- 
land) on  October  13,  1598,  reached  Plymouth,  Kngland,  Dec.  11,  and  Middelburg,  in  Zetland, 
Dec.  28,  1.598;  the  voyage  thus    taking  about   11   weeks.     On  the  way  they  spoke,  in  the 

'West  Indies,  an  English  galky  of  25  tons.     Cabeliau's  vessels  were  the  Zeeridder,  160  tons, 

l»nd  Jonait,  120  tons.  (B.  C.  I,  p.  18.) 

I         Considerable  delay  was  usually  experienced  in  getting  from  the  Orinoco's  mouth  up  to 

i  Santo  Thom^.  Cabeliau  spent  20  days  in  ascending  the  Orinoco  to  Santo  Thome — about 
forty  (Dutch)  miles,  with  a  ship  of  '  about  72  tons,"  a  yacht  "  of  about  18  tons,"  and  another 
■yacht ;  altogether  carrying  "  about  60  persons."  (B.  C.  I,  p.  20.) 


230  SPANISH  TITLE. 

fields  and  to  the  meeting  house.  The  forests  of  Guiana  were  dark 
and  limitless,  and  the  making  of  fields  was  a  work  that  bowed 
the  backs  of  many  generations  of  pioneers,  even  in  the 
northern  colonies.  In  the  tropics  the  w^oods  had  no  paths, 
save  the  streams,  and  even  these  had  sometimes  to  be  cleaied 
with  the  axe  for  the  passage  of  a  canoe.  The  interlacing  and 
matted  vines  stopped  the  feet  as  effectnally  as  a  stone  wall. 
The  wild  vegetation  speedily  i-ecovered  the  possession  of  which 
the  settler  had  by  vast  labor  robbed  it  -if  he  at  all  relaxed  his 
vigilance.  To  cut  a  path  through  the  forests  was,  as  Courthial 
said,  a  work  for  a  colony,  not  for  a  man.  Piracy,  attracted 
by  the  gold  that  Spain  was  taking  from  her  colonies,  threat- 
ened all  of  her  ships  and  all  of  her  settlements.  The  Dutch 
West  India  Company  counted  these  captures  as  its  richest  per- 
quisite. Raleigh  apparently  thought  himself  entitled  to  divide 
this  source  of  wealth  with  the  Dutch.  In  1614  the  Dutch  wMth 
the  Caribs  invested  Trinidad  (B.  C,  p.  22).  In  1618  Raleigh  de- 
stroyed Santo  Thome  (B.  C,  p.  49).  In  1629  the  English  and  the 
Dutch  made  a  combined  attack  on  Santo  Thome  (B.  C.  I,  p.  TO). 
In  1687  the  Dutch  and  the  Caribs  captured,  burned  and  plundered 
Santo  Thome    (B.  C.  I,  p.  88). 

These  acts  delayed  Spanish  settlement,  and  it  would  seem  to 
be  contrary  to  familiar  rules  of  law  that  the  Dutch  and  British, 
who  so  nvuch  contributed  to  the  delay,  should  acquire  an  advan- 
tage from  their  own  wrongs. 

About  the  year  1748  a  diplomatic  controversy  between  Eng- 
land and  France,  as  to  the  ownership  of  St.  Lucia  Island,  was  re- 
ferred to  commissioners  for  adjustment.  The  English  had  settled 
there  in  1()89,  hut  were  driven  out  the  following  year  by  the 
Caribs,  many  of  the  settlers  being  killed.  The  French  seized  the 
island  in  1650,  upon  the  claim  that  Great  Britain  had  abandoned 
it.     Phillimore  (vol.  i,  p.  368),  says, 

'*  the  English  negotiators  contended  that  their  dereliction  had  been  the  re- 
sult of  violence     *     *     *     jiiul  (hut  it  was  not  competent  for  Friince  to 


DISCOVERY.  231 

profit  by  this  act  of  violenceand  surreptitiously  obtain  the  territory  of  an- 
other state." 

Well,  was   not   Spain's  colonization  of  Guiana  also  retarded 
by  these  Caribs— s«t    on   often    by  the  secret   machinations  of 
the  Dutch,  and  by  Dutch  attacks  upon  the  Spanish  posts,  and  by 
the  piratical  raids  of  Raleigh?     Was  not  Spain'o  dereliction  the 
result  of  violence?     And  have  we  not  here  an  attempt  to  profit  by 
this  violence,  and  to  *'  surreptitiously  obtain  the  territory  of  an- 
other state  "?     Can  the  Dutch,  keeping  themselves  under  cover, 
send  the  Caribs  to  destroy  a  Spanish  mission,  and  then  base  a  claim 
to  the  territory  upon  thefailureof  Spain  tore-establish  it  promptly? 
England's  settlements  on  the  Nev^  England  coasts  grew,  not  out  of 
the  attractiveness  of  that  region,  but  out  of  the  unattractiveuess  of 
England  to  men  who  valued  religious  liberty  more  than  personal 
comfort  and  riches.     Men  were  punished  for  crimes  by  deportation 
to  the  colonies.     The  slave   trade  was  put  under  requisition  for 
laborers  that  Euiope  could  not  supply.     This  was  especially  true  of 
the  tropics,  where  white  men  could  not  do  the  work  of  the  fields. 
The  Dutch  Guiana  colonies  depended  absolutely  upon  their  slaves 
to  work  their  plantations,  so  much  so  that  the  slaves  far  outnum- 
bered the  colonists  and,  though  unarmed,  were  a  constant  menace 
to  the  peace  and  safety  of  the  settlements.     So  inexorable  was  the 
demand  for  slaves  that  the  Dutch  stimulated  the  Caribs  to  make 
war  upon  the  interior  tribes,  that  the  captives  taken  might  be 
enslaved.      Europe   was  not  wanting  "lands  for  the  landless." 
England  had  appropriated  an  extent  of  territory  so  great  that  free 
lands  of  the  best  quality  were  offered,  three  hundred  and  seven ty- 
five  years  after  Cabot's  discovery,  both  in  the  United  States  and 
Canada,  to  all  who  would  settle  upon  them.     Bureaus  were  estab- 
lished and  agents  sent  to  Europe  to  seek  for  emigrants,   and  the 
supply  of  free  lands  has  not  yet  been  fully  exhausted.     No  other 
nation  was  hindered  or  kept  out  of  the  present  use  of  lands  that  it 
'  was  then  waiting  to  cultivate.     So  far  as  there  were  contentions, 
I  they  were  for  power,  for  points  of  future  advantage,  for  gold  — 


232  SPANISH  TITLK. 

not  for  settlement.  The  Dutch  were  not  kept  by  Spain  out  of  a 
territory  they  were  ready  to  settle.  The  small  region  they  had 
seized  as  an  act  of  war,  on  the  coast  of  Guiana,  was  in  excess  of 
their  ahiUty  to  settle,  and  so  remained  up  to  the  cession  to  Great 
Britain,  two  hundred  and  one  years  after  the  date  of  the  first  Dutch 
settlement,  as  fixed  by  the  British  Case. 

It  is  to  this  period  and  to  these  conditions  that  the  doctrine  of 
a  ''  reasonable  time"  is  to  be  applied;  and  in  the  further  light  of 
the  practical  definition  given  by  the  other  great  nations  in  those 
parts  of  America  claimed  by  them. 

Before  concluding  this  discussion,  we  think  it  well  to  say  that 
it  is  the  law  and  the  international  usage  of  the  10th  and  17th  cen- 
turies, and  not  the  stricter  modern  view  of  occupation,  expressed 
in  the  Berlin  Convention  of  1884,  that  must  govern  in  this  case. 

This  is  admitted  in  the  British  Case  (p.  154)  to  be  the  rule  as 
applied  to  the  reasonable  period  given  for  actual  settlement,  and 
by  the  same  reason  it  must  be  the  rule  as  to  the  character  of  the 
settlement  required,  and  the  constructive  extent  given  to  such 
settlements. 

Ch.  Soloman,  in  his  "Occupation  of  territories  without  an 
owner,"  takes  the  view  that  the  occupations  effected  in  former 
times  cannot  be  considered  by  the  standard  of  principles  admitted 
in  Berlin,  but  according  to  the  principles  ruling  at  the  time.  As 
an  example,  the  author  presents  the  case  of  the  Caroline  Islands, 
and  asserts  that  the  question  was  settled  with  as  much  wisdom  as 
impartiality  by  the  Pope.  Germany  alleged  the  existence  on  the 
islands  of  commercial  establishments  of  her  subjects;  the  steps 
taken  by  the  founders  of  such  establishments  toinduce  the  German 
Government  to  establish  a  protectorate  over  the  island;  the  absence 
of  sovereignty  of  Spain,  who  did  not  have  even  subjects  engaged 
in  commerce  in  that  region;  the  want  of  indications  to  the  powei-s 
that  there  was  a  nation  exercising  right  of  sovereignty  over  the 
territory,  and  the  participation  of  Spain  in  the  Beilin  Congress. 
The  exceptions  taken  by  Germany  and  Great  Britain  in  1875  were 


DISCOVERY.  238 

also  alleged  respecting  the  case  of  a  consul  having  claimed  as 
Spanish  subjects  some  natives  of  the  Caroline  Islands,  saved  by  an 
English  vessel  from  a  shipw'reck,  an  exception  over  which  Spain 
remained  silent,  as  though  she  did  not  pretend  to  rights  of 
sovereignty  over  those  islands. 

Spain  alleged  that  effective  occupation  was  not  applicable  to  the 
island  of  Tap;  first,  on  account  of  its  geographical  position;  second, 
because  it  was  not  an  object  of  new  occupation.  There  had  been 
a  prior  occupation;  Spanish  officers  were  on  land  engaged  in  build- 
ing a  small  fort  when  the  German  officers  arrived;  the  Spanish  flag 
had  floated  over  the  Caroline  Islands  since  1526.  From  that  time 
forward  and  in  the  16th,  17th  and  18th  centuries,  Spain  had  sent 
to  those  islands  a  great  number  of  military  expeditions  and  many 
religious  missions,  and  had  made  repeated  attempts  at  coloniza- 
tion. In  1731  the  Philippine  missionaries  succeeded  in  reaching 
the  archipelago.  Spain  had  the  monopoly  of  missions,  the  dif- 
fusion of  religion,  and  of  the  planting  of  civilization  in  those 
remote  islands.  In  1885  the  frigate  Velasco  visited  the  island  of 
Tap,  and  the  Minister  for  the  islands  informed  the  Senate  that  it 
was  the  intention  to  renew  those  visits,  and  that  the  manifestation 
of  sovereignty  seemed  expedient;  that  the  natives  knew  the  name 
of  His  Majesty  Alfonso  XII.,  and  knew  also  that  they  were  under 
Spanish  control. 

Appointed  as  a  mediator,  the  Pope  recognized  the  sovereignty 
of  Spain  over  the  Caroline  and  Palaos  Islands,  based  on  the  fact  of 
discovery,  and  the  acts  performed  there  by  the  Spanish  Govern- 
ment, though  these  acts  did  not  give  it  the  character  of  effective 
occupation. 

In  1848  Mr.  Upshar,  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States,  in 
;  a  letter  of  instructions  to  Mr.  Everett,  our  Minister  to  Great  Brit- 
|ain,  said.     (Wharton,  Int.  Law,  i,  5): 

*'  How  far  tiie  mere  discovery  of  a  territory  which  is  either  unsettled,  or 
j  settled  only  by  savages,  gives  a  riglit  to  it,  is  a  question  which  neither  the 
j  law  nor  the  usages  of  nations  has  yet  definitely  settled.     The  opinions  of 


234  SPANISH  TITLE. 

mankind,  upon  this  point,  have  undergone  very  great  changes  with  the 
l^rogress  of  knowledge  and  civilization.  Yet  it  will  scarcely  be  denied  that 
rights  acquired  by  the  general  consent  of  civilized  nations,  even  under 
the  erroneous  views  of  an  unenlightened  age,  are  protected  against,  the 
changes  of  opinion  resulting  merely  from  the  more  liberal,  or  the  more  just, 
views  of  alter  times.  The  right  of  nations  to  countries  discovered  in  the 
sixteenth  century  is  to  be  determined  by  the  law  of  nations  as  understood 
at  that  time,  and  not  by  the  improved  and  more  enlightened  opinion  of 
three  centuries  later." 

But,  if  it  is  still  said  that  the  whole  of  Guiana  canuot  be 
claimed  by  Spain  under  her  title  as  a  discoverer,  notwithstanding 
the  law  of  that  time  and  the  practice  of  the  nations  in  the  settle- 
ment of  America,  surely  the  limited  claim  here  involved  cannot  be 
denied. 

In  the  Case  of  Venezuela  (vol.  i,  pp.  231,  233;  paragraphs  9,  17) 
there  are  described  as  having  the  characteristics  of  geographical 
units,  certain  regions  less  than  the  whole  of  Guiana,  to  which  it 
is  claimed  the  occupation  of  Spain,  at  the  least,  extended.  The 
British  Counter-Case  denies  that  either  of  these  regions  was  a 
geographical  unit,  and  denies  a  Spanish  actual  or  attributive 
occupation,  with  this  reservation  as  to  the  region  described  in 
paragraph  9:  "and  except  so  far  as  Mission  stations  constituted 
occupation,  it  is  not  true  that  Spain  occupied  any  part  of  such 
region."    (B.  C.-C,  pp.  139-140;  paragraphs  9,  lY.) 

It  is  further  said  that  the  Dutch  "occupied  or  controlled  the 
rest  of  that  region." 

The  Spanish  missions  constituted  an  official  occupation  in  a 
most  distinct  sense,  and  looked  directly  to  the  use  of  the  soil  for 
crops  and  grazing.  It  is  a  small  claim  that  Venezuela — the  suc- 
cessoi-  of  the  discoverer— puts  forward  when  she  suggests  these 
limited  areas  as  the  scope  of  Spain's  occupancy  and  title.  If  the 
Biitish  claim  to  Baiima  were  granted,  not  one  foot  of  the  sea 
coast  of  Guiana  would  remain  to  the  discoverer. 

If  Venezuela's  claim  is  allowed  to  the  Essequibo  she  will  then 
take  less  than  one-third  of  Guiana. 


DISCOVERY.  235 

Before  the  Dutch  settled  in  Guiana  Spain  had  occupied  the 
region  to  the  north  and  west  of  the  Orinoco.  She  had  traversed 
the  Orinoco  from  the  sea  to  its  head  waters,  and  from  its  sources 
to  the  sea.  She  had  settled  Trinidad  as  a  base  of  supplies  and 
defense  for  her  contemplated  river  settlements,  and  for  her  pro- 
jected occupation  of  Eldorado.  She  had  founded  Santo  Thome  at 
the  most  available  point  on  the  east  bank  of  the  river — above  the 
marsh  lands — as  a  nearer  base  for  htv  inland  occupation.  All  the 
region  to  the  north  and  west  of  the  Orinoco  River  she  had  actually 
appropriated.  Spain  had  also  appropriated  the  Pacific  coast,  and 
her  occupation  there  cut  off  the  approach  of  other  nations  from 
that  direction  to  the  head  waters  of  the  Amazon  and  of  the 
Orinoco;  while  her  own  people  came  from  the  Pacific  to  the 
Atlantic  by  way  of  those  rivers.  Portugal,  which  from  1580  to 
lt)40  was  under  the  crown  of  Spain,  had  occupied  and  appropriated 
the  Amazon,  and  thus  Spain  held  the  approaches  to  Guiana  on 
three  sides,  when  the  Dutch  entered  the  Essequibo.  But  Spain's 
coast  occupation  was  not  limited  to  the  Amazon  and  the  Orinoco. 
She  had  occupied  the  Essequibo  before  the  Dutch  came. 

It  will  hardly  be  denied  by  Great  Britain  that  the  line  of  the 
Essequibo  might  have  been  well  and  rightfully  claimed  by  Spain 
when  the  Dutch  entered  there,  if,  as  we  claim,  there  had  been  an 
earlier  Spanish  settlement  on  the  Essequibo,  even  if  it  was  not 
then  maintained.  Spain  was,  in  other  places,  and  by  other  public 
and  eft'ective  acts,  prosecuting  and  proclaiming  her  purpose  to 
occupy  Guiana,  and  the  withdrawal  for  a  time  of  the  Essequibo 
settlement  did  not  work  an  abandonment.  In  view  of  her  own 
contentions  in  the  St.  Lucia  and  Falkland  Island  cases,  Great 
Britain  can  not  be  heard  to  say  that  it  did.  The  evidence  of  a 
Spanish  settlement  in  the  Essequibo  is,  we  think,  complete. 

The  constructive  effect  which  Great  Britain  gives  to  the  Dutch 
settlement  on  the  Essequibo  certainly  cannot  be  denied  to  the 
earlier  Spanish  settlement  there,  and,  given  that  scope,  the  whole 
interior  was  in  Spanish  occupation. 


236  SPANISH  TITLE. 

But  if  there  had  never  been  a  Spanish  settlement  on  the  Esse- 
quibo,  the  settlements  at  Trinidad  and  Santo  Thome,  taken  in 
connection  with  the  explorations  and  acts  of  dominion  by  Spain 
on  the  coast  and  in  the  interior,  surely  had  a  larger  effect  than 
to  give  to  her,  as  the  discoverer  of  Guiana,  a  mere  strip  on  the 
eastern  bank  of  the  Orinoco  below  the  Caroni,  and  even  that  strip 
broken  on  the  lowest  stretch  of  the  river,  so  as  to  wrest  from  her 
the  control  of  that  great  water  way  and  isolate  her  settlements. 
It  would  be  an  unprecedented  application  of  the  rules  and  usages 
of  the  time  to  limit  Spain  to  the  Essequibo  line.  To  give  less 
effect  than  that  to  her  discovery  and  occupation  would  be  to  say 
that  discovery  is  so  reprehensible  that  no  large  constructive  ex- 
tension of  its  bounds  can  be  allowed;  that  all  such  beneficial  con- 
structive effects  are  reserved  for  the  meritorious  second  comer. 

We  have  limited  our  discussion  under  this  head  to  the  question 
of  Spain's  title  by  discover^'-,  and  have  chiefly  referred  to  such 
Spanish  explorations  and  settlements  as  antedated  the  first  Dutch 
settlement  on  the  Essequibo.  Our  purpose  has  been  to  show  that 
Spain's  title  covered  that  region,  and  that  the  Dutch  could  not 
enter  there  as  upon  lands  terra  nulHus;  that  they  could  only  dis- 
place Spain's  title  by  conquest,  by  cession  or  by  prescription.  At 
a  later  period  in  our  argument  we  will  discuss  the  limitations  that 
attach  to  those  forms  of  title,  and  the  extent  of  territory  that 
must  be  allotted  to  Spain,  even  if  her  just  claims  as  the  discoverer 
of  Guiana  are  ignored. 

We  have  maintained,  we  think,  these  propositions: 

First. — That  Spain  discovered  and  took  a  good  ceremonial 
occupation  of  Guiana,  which  was  then  a  distinct  geographical 
unit,  a  region  every  boundary  of  which  could  be  traversed  by  a 
continuous  boat  journey;  that  the  geographical  separateness  of 
the  region  was  further  emphasized  by  the  fact  that  in  its  centre 
the  Eldorado  was,  in  the  belief  of  the  time,  located. 

Second. — That  Spain's  discovery  and  ceremonial  occupation  of 
Guiana  were  followed,  within  a  reasonable  time,  by  the  organiza- 


UNfVERSITY 

or 

tion  of  a  number  of  strong  and  costly  exploring  expeditions,  which 
fought  their  way  against  the  Indians  into  many  parts  of  the 
interior,  entered  every  important  river  and  coasted  every  boun- 
dary, and  that  the  avowed  purpose  of  all  these  labors  was  the 
occupation  of  Guiana. 

Third.— That  before  any  settlement  within  the  bounds  of 
Guiana  had  been  made  by  another  nation,  Spain  had  established 
permanent  settlements  on  the  Island  of  Trinidad  and  at  Santo 
Thome,  liad  for  a  time  maintained  a  settlement  on  the  Essequibo, 
and  had  appointed  a  Governor  of  the  "  Province  of  Guiana." 

Fourth. —That  these  acts  and  settlements  were,  and  were 
publicly  known  to  be,  a  part  of  Spain's  scheme  for  the  occupation 
of  Guiana,  and,  in  the  belief  of  the  time,  closed  the  only  prac- 
ticable entrance  to  the  Eldorado  in  the  interior  of  that  Province. 

Fifth. — That  Spain's  purpose  to  occupy  and  hold  Guiana,  and 
her  presence  there,  were  so  well  known  to  the  Dutch  and  to  the 
English,  that  when  they  came  there,  with  any  intent  to  enter  or 
to  occupy,  it  was  in  the  expectation  of  an  armed  conflict  with 
Spain. 

Sixth.— That  when  the  Dutch  settled  on  the  Essequibo,  they 
well  knew  that  Spain  claimed  Guiana,  and  especially  had  not 
abandoned  her  claim  to  Essequibo.  They  were  at  war  with  Spain 
and  seized  her  territory.  They  held  Essequibo  just  as  they  would 
have  held  Trinidad  and  Santo  Thome  if  they  had  been  able  to  main- 
tain themselves  there. 

Seventh,  —That  Spain  had  perfected  her  title  to  G  uiana  by  the 
rules  of  law  and  the  practice  of  the  nations  then  prevailing,  and 
had  never  abandoned  any  part  of  it.  But  that  even  if  Spain's  acts 
were  inadequate  to  confirm  her  title  to  the  whole  of  Guiana,  they 
were  certainly  adequate  to  confirm  her  title  to  the  territory  in 
dispute;  that  the  Dutch  could  not  therefore  rightfully  occupy,  as 
terra  nullias,  Essequibo  or  any  part  of  the  disputed  territory,  and 
that  any  title  acquired  by  the  Dutch  there  must  be  rested  either 
upon  conquest,  cession  or  prescription. 


238  SPANISH   TITLE. 

Eighth. — That  if  by  Spain's  dereliction  any  part  of  her  dis- 
covery became  subject  to  appropriation  by  another  nation,  Spain's 
inchoate  title  was  not  lost  until— and  only  so  far  as — that  other 
nation  first  accomplished  a  competent,  actual  occupation. 

We  state  here,  for  elaboration  hereafter,  these  further  proposi- 
tions: 

(A.)  That  as  Spain  was  the  discoverer  and  made  the  first  settle- 
ments, she  is  entitled  to  claim  the  full  benefit  of  every  rule,  giving 
a  constructive  extension  to  the  limits  of  her  actual  occupation, 
before  any  of  these  rules  can  be  invoked  to  aid  the  Dutch. 

(B.)  That  titles  by  conquest,  cession  and  prescription  are  not 
helped  by  the  large  rules  of  constructive  occupation,  but  are 
strictly  limited. 

Before,  however,  discussing  the  boundary  upon  the  theory 
propounded  by  Great  Britain,  namely,  that  Spain  must  be  limited 
to  her  actual  occupation,  we  desire  to  discuss  the  Dutch-British 
title;  to  show  that  it  has  its  origin  either  in  conquest,  cession  or 
prescription,  and  to  point  out  the  limitations  of  those  forms  of 
title. 


CHAPTER   Vn. 

THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  DUTCH  WEST  INDIA  COM- 
PANY AS  BEARING  ON  THE  QUESTION  OF  TITLE. 

Allusion  has  already  been  made  to  the  peculiar  character 
of  the  Dutch  West  India  Company  as  a  private  trading  cor- 
poration engaged  in  the  government  of  a  colony.  In  order  to  es- 
tablish fully  the  character  of  its  acts  as  influencing  the  question 
of  title,  it  is  necessary  to  examine  separately  the  constitution  of 
the  Company,  the  purposes  for  which  it  was  organized,  and  the 
mode  in  w^hich  these  purposes  were  carried  out. 

The  Dutch  West  India  Company  was  originally  chartered  in 
1621,  at  the  close  of  the  truce  between  Spain  and  the  Netherlands. 
Its  charter  was  renewed  in  1647,  a  year  before  the  war  came  to 
an  end. 

The  Company,  as  stated  in  its  original  charter,  was  created  for 
purposes  of  trade.  It  was  considered  by  the  States-General 
that  the  maritime  and  commercial  enterprise  of  the  Dutch  would 
be  wasted  if  left  to  individual  enterprise.  It  was  in  order  to  con- 
centrate all  the  efforts  of  such  individuals  and  to  direct  thorn  in  a 
single  channel  that  the  West  India  Company  was  formed.  So 
says  the  i)reamble  of  the  charter  (V.  C.  vol.  iii,  p.  1): 

••  And  being  desirous  that  the  aforesaid  inhabitants  not  only  be  rrraiu- 
tained  in  their  navigation,  commerce  and  trade,  l)at  also  that  their  com- 
merce should  increase  as  much  as  possible,  especially  in  conformity  with 
the  Treaties,  Alliances,  Conventions,  and  Agreements  formerly  made  con- 
cerning the  commerce  and  navigation  with  other  Princes,  Republics  and 
nations,  which  Treaties  we  intend  shall  be  punctually  kept  and  observed 
in  all  their  parts : 

And  we,  linding  by  experience  that  without  the  common  help,  aid 
and  means  of  a  General  Company  no  profitable  business  can  be  carried 
on,  protected  and  maintained  in  the  parts  hereafter  enumerated,  on  ac- 
count of  the  great  risks  from  sea  pirates,  extortions  and  other  things  of 
the  same  kind,  which  are  incurred  upon  such  long  and  distant  journeys: 


240  CONSTITUTION    OF    WEST    INDIA    COMPANY. 

We,  therefore,  being  moved  by  many  different  and  pregnant  consid- 
erations, have,  after  matnre  deliberation  of  the  Council  and  for  very 
pressing  causes,  decided  that  the  navigation,  trade  and  commerce  in  the 
West  Indies,  Africa,  and  other  countries  hereafter  enumerated,  shall 
lieiiceforth  not  be  carried  on  otiierwise  than  with  the  common  united 
strength  of  the  merchants  and  inhabitants  of  these  lands,  and  that  to 
this  end  there  shall  be  established  a  General  Company  which,  on  ac- 
count of  our  great  love  for  the  common  welfare,  and  in  order  to  preserve 
the  inhabitants  of  these  lands  in  full  prosperity,  we  shall  maintain  and 
strengthen  with  our  assistance,  favour  and  help,  as  far  as  the  present 
state  and  condition  of  this  country  will  in  any  way  allow,  and  which  we 
shall  furnish  with  a  proper  Charter,  and  endow  with  the  privileges  and 
exemptions  hereafter  enumerated,  to  wit: 

I. 

That  for  a  period  of  twenty-four  years  no  native  or  inhabitant  of  this 
country  shall  be  permitted,  except  in  the  name  of  this  United  Company, 
either  from  the  United  Netherlands  or  from  any  place  outside  them,  to 
sail  upon  or  to  trade  with  the  coasts  and  lands  of  Africa,  from  the  Tropic 
of  Cancer  to  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  nor  with  the  countries  of  America 
and  the  West  Indies,  beginning  from  the  southern  extremity  of  New- 
foundland through  the  Straits  of  Magellan,  Le  Maire,  and  other  straits 
and  channels  lying  thereabouts,  to  the  Strait  of  Anjan,  neither  on  the 
North  nor  on  the  South  Sea,  nor  with  any  of  the  islands  situated  either 
on  the  one  side  or  the  other,  or  between  them  both;  nor  with  the  Aus- 
tralian and  southern  lands  extending  and  lying  between  the  two  meri- 
dians, reaching  in  the  east  to  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  and  in  the  west  to 
the  east  end  of  New  Guinea,  inclusive." 

The  object  of  the  chaiter  was  not  to  make  that  a  pubhc  enter- 
prise which  had  theretofore  been  private.  The  West  Indian  com- 
merce of  the  Dutch  was  to  be  concentrated;  but  it  was  concen- 
trated in  the  hands  of  a  private  corporation.  Other  corpoiations 
and  individuals  could  only  engage  in  it  through  and  under  tlie 
Company  which  had  the  monopoly. 

The  monopoly  of  trade  so  given  to  the  Company  did  not  give  it 
any  rights  as  against  other  States,  or  the  subjects  of  other  States, 
and  asserted  no  rights  on  the  part  of  the  Netherlands  as  against 
other  States  or  their  subjects.     The  territory  to  which  it  re- 


CONSTITUTION    OF    WEST    INDIA    COMPANY.  241 

ferred  included  the  whole  of  North  and  South  America,  a  part 
of  Africa,  the  whole  of  Australia  and  the  islands  of  the  South 
Sea.  At  the  date  of  the  charter,  a  large  part  of  this  terri- 
tory had  already  been  taken  up  by  various  European  States;  and 
obviously  the  charter  never  meant,  nor  was  intended  to  mean,  a 
conveyance  to  the  West  India  Company  of  rights  which  had  been 
acquired  by  such  States,  except  in  so  far  as  such  acquisitions  might 
be  made  from  the  enemy  of  the  Republic  as  an  incident  of  war. 
To  infer  otherwise  would  be  to  suppose  that  the  Dutch  West  India 
Company  was  a  gigantic  scheme  of  land  piracy,  by  which  a  pri- 
vate corporation  created  by  the  Dutch  Government  was  to  rob  all 
the  other  States  of  Europe  of  the  soil  which  they  had  acquired 
and  occupied.  It  is  true  that  proclamations  issued  later  for- 
bade all  the  world  to  trade  with  the  countries  named  in  the 
charter,  but  these  proclamations,  which,  according  to  their 
terms,  would  have  prohibited  England,  France  and  Spain  from 
visiting  or  trading  with  their  own  colonies,  otherwise  than 
through  the  Company,  must  be  set  down  as  mere  Dutch 
rhodomontade.  The  object  and  purpose  of  the  West  India  Com- 
pany in  1621  was  the  development  of  Dutch  trade  with  Africa, 
Australia  and  the  countries  of  the  New  World.  While  the  com- 
pany was  ostensibly  a  trading  company,  it  was  also,  from  the 
beginning,  used  as  a  pait  of  the  military  organization  of  the 
Netherlands  in  the  war  with  Spain. 

In  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries,  at  any  time  when  a 
war  was  in  progress,  there  was  no  more  important  incident  of  over- 
sea trade  than  privateering.  Merchant  ships  found  it  necessary  to 
go  armed  for  defense,  and  being  so  armed  they  took  out  commis- 
sions as  privateeis,  and  used  their  armaments  for  offensive  opera- 
tions as  well.  Privateering  against  Spain  was  the  real  source  of  the 
great  profits  of  the  Dutch  West  India  Company  during  the  Thirty 
Years'  War.     According  to  Bancroft  (V.  C,  vol.  i,  p.  75,  note): 

"  Reprisals  on  Spanish  commerce  were  the  great  object  of  the  West 
India  Company,      .      .      .      The   Spanish  prizes,  taken  by  the  chartered 


242  CONSTITUTION    OF    WEF5T    INDIA    COMPANY. 

privateers,  on  a  single  occasion  in  1628,  were  almost  eighty-fold  more  val- 
uable than  the  whole  amount  of  exports  from  New  Netherlands  for  the  four 
preceding  years." 

For  the  purpose  of  injuring  Spanish  commerce  in  the  seas 
which  it  most  frequented,  and  incidentally  to  enlarge  the  profits  of 
privateering,  the  States-General,  in  the  course  of  the  war,  relaxed 
its  trade  prohibitions  as  to  that  part  of  the  American  coast  within 
the  circuit  of  the  West  Indian  Islands,  including  the  Orinoco  and 
the  coast  line  extending  around  to  Florida.  These  waters  w^ere 
known  to  all  the  world  as  the  Spanish  Main.  The  British  Case 
appears  to  lay  some  stress  upon  these  "Sailing  Regulations,"  as 
they  were  called,  as  if  they  were  in  some  sense  the  definition  of 
a  territorial  frontier.  Such,  however,  was  not  their  character  or 
purpose.  They  were  simply  the  opening  to  privateering  enter- 
prise of  a  part  of  the  territory  in  which  the  chartered  Company 
had  theretofore  been  given  a  trade  monopoly,  and  their  object,  as 
stated  in  Article  I  (B.  C,  I,  p.  73),  was: 

"  In  order  to  injure  and  offer  hostility  to  the  King  of  Spain,  his  subjects, 
and  adherents,  both  on  land  and  water." 

For  this  purpose  the  Netherlands  threw  open  to  all  its  sub- 
jects those  parts  of  the  coast  west  of  the  Orinoco  "in  order  there 
to  carry  on  all  manner  of  warfare  by  sea  and  by  land  against  the 
King  of  Spain,  her  subjects  and  allies."  (V.  C,  vol.  ii,  p.  20.) 
A  share  of  the  prizes  taken  in  this  region  was,  however,  reserved 
to  the  West  India  Company.  The  mention  of  the  Orinoco  in 
these  regulations  only  indicates  that  it  was  recognized  as  a  centre 
of  Spanish  commerce  in  that  region,  which  included  also  the  im- 
portant and  neighboring  ports  of  Cartliagena,  Portobello  and  La 
Guayra. 

The  charter  w^as  from  the  first  essentially  a  war  measure. 
Efforts  had  for  some  years  been  made  to  obtain  such  a  concession, 
but  the  Dutch  Government  refused  to  gi'ant  any  charter  during 
the  Twelve  Years'  Truce  from  1609  to  1621,  and  the  attempts  of 
the  Dutch  to  make  colonies  on   the  coast  of  Guiana  before  that 


1 


CONSTITUTION    OF    WEST    INDIA    COMPANY.  243 

date  had  been  individual  attempts,  and  had  been  checked,  as  in 
the  case  of  the  Corentin  settlement,  in  1613,  by  repressive  meas- 
ures on  the  part  of  Spain.  As  soon  as  the  Truce  was  ended,  how- 
ever,  the  charter  was  granted  (V.  C,  vol.  i,  pp.  69,  Y5).  It  doubtless 
contemplated  the  possibihty  that  by  the  success  of  the  Dutch  arms 
during  the  war  a  foothold  might  be  acquired  at  some  point  in  the 
vast  territories  named  in  the  Company's  charter,  in  America, 
Africa  or  elsewhere,  by  conquest  from  Spain,  a  part  of  which 
might  still  remain  in  occupation  at  its  close  and  be  ceded 
by  Spain  in  the  treaty  of  peace,  as  was  actually  done,  on  the 
basis  of  uti  possidetis.  Ordinarily,  such  a  foothold,  if  pre- 
served at  all  during  war,  is  preserved  by  a  military  occupa- 
tion. The  charter,  however,  having  given  the  Dutch  Company 
the  trade  monopoly  in  all  territories  that  might  possibly  be  subject 
to  conquest,  also  provided  for  occupation  by  the  West  India  Com- 
pany, which  was  allowed  to  build  "  fortresses  and  strongholds, 
appoint  Governors,  soldiers,  and  officers  of  justice,  and  do  every- 
thing necessary  for  the  preservation  of  the  places  and  the  main- 
tenance of  good  order,  police,  and  justice"  (V.  C,  vol.  iii,  p.  2). 
These  are  attributes  of  internal  sovereignty,  delegated  by  a  Gov- 
ernment for  specific  purposes  to  a  private  corporation.  It  was  also 
allowed,  within  the  limits  named  in  the  charter,  to  make  "  con- 
tiacts,  leagues  and  alliances  with  the  Princes  and  natives  of  the 
lands  therein  comprised."  The  only  limitation  upon  it  was  that 
"the  representatives  of  the  Company  shall  successively  com- 
municate to  us  and  hand  over  such  contracts  and  alliances  as 
they  shall  have  made  with  the  aforesaid  Princes  and  natives, 
together  with  the  situation  of  the  foitresses,  stiongholds,  and  set- 
tlements taken  in  hand  by  them." 
^  These  powers  were  renewed  in  the  charter  of  1647,  and  thereby 
rojected  into  the  period  of  peace  following  the  Thirty  Years' 
'"ar,  and  they  were  substantially  repeated  in  the  charter  of  1674, 
iven  to  the  new  West  India  Company,  which  only  terminated  in 


244  CONSTITUTION    OF    WEST    INDIA    COMPANY. 

1791,  but  limited  in  terms  to  the  two  geographical  points  of  Esse- 
quibo  and  Pomeroon. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that,  under  their  charters,  the  West  India 
Company  held  certain  deputed  and  delegated  powers  over  the  settle- 
ments comprised  in  their  charters  and  over  the  colonists  of  which 
these  settlements  were  formed.  It  not  only  held  these  powers,  but 
it  exercised  them.  The  authority  over  Essequibo  and  Pomeroon 
was  thereafter  entirely  in  the  hands  of  the  Company.  The  Dutch 
Government  never  interfered  with  it  except  to  settle  the  occasional 
quarrels  as  to  their  respective  powers  between  different  Chambers 
of  the  Company.  The  States  General  had  given  powers  of  govern- 
ment to  the  Company,  and  they  left  them  to  the  Company.  The 
acts  of  the  Company  during  this  period,  therefore,  in  the  exercise 
of  these  powers  were  the  acts  of  the  Dutch  Government.  Its  ad- 
missions and  claims  in  reference  to  territorial  rights  were  the  ad- 
missions and  claims  of  the  Government.  The  Dutch  title,  what- 
ever it  may  have  been,  could  be  asserted  only  through  the  Com- 
pany, It  was  in  fact  asserted  only  by  the  Company,  except  on 
the  three  formal  occasions  when  the  Company  applied  to  the 
States  General  to  cause  representations  to  be  made  to  the  Spanish 
Government  by  their  Ambassador  at  Madrid,  and  upon  all  of 
these  occasions  the  Company  had  already  been  acting  directly 
by  means  of  correspondence  with  the  Spanish  authorities  on  the 
spot. 

Whatever  Dutch  claims,  therefore,  may  be  asserted  to  terri- 
tory in  Guiana,  no  such  claim  ever  was,  and  cannot  now  be  sug- 
gested apart  from  the  Company,  and  the  admissions  of  the  Com- 
pany are  the  admissions  of  the  Netherlands  themselves. 

The  programme  outlined  in  the  charter  of  the  Company  was 
substantially  carried  out.  Dutch  expeditions  made  incursions  at 
various  points  in  the  Spanish  territory,  as  on  the  Orinoco  and  in 
Trinidad,  which,  however,  they  did  not  hold.  Under  cover  of  these 
incursions,  the  Dutch  established  themselves  at  points  to  the  east 
ward,  including  Berbice  and  Essequibo,  in  which  latter  river  they 


CONSTITUTION    OF    WEST    INDIA    COMPANY.  245 

found  the  lemains  of  a  Spanish  fort  ready  to  their  hand,  on  the 
island  of  Kykoveral. 

At  the  close  of  the  war,  when  an  adjustment  came  to  be  made 
on  the  principle  of  present  possession,  the  westernmost  of  these 
establishments,  as  is  clearly  shown  by  the  evidence,  w^as  this  fort 
in  the  Essequibo,  marking  what  was  still  called,  as  late  as  1814,  the 
"  Estabhshment"  of  that  name.  It  is  conclusively  shown  by  the 
evidence  that  at  this  date  the  Dutch  neither  held  nor  possessed 
anything  to  the  west  of  the  Essequibo. 

By  the  Treaty  of  Munster,  therefore,  the  "Establishment"  at 
Kykoveral,  with  all  the  other  possessions  to  the  eastward,  was 
ceded  to  the  Netherlands,  and,  as  will  presently  be  shown,  the 
West  India  Company  expressly  admitted  that  they  held  these 
possessions  under  a  grant  of  the  Spanish  title. 

As  might  be  expected  from  the  circumstances  leading  to  the 
creation  of  the  Company,  the  necessity  for  its  existence,  at  least 
in  the  form  in  which  it  had  been  originally  constituted,  ended 
with  the  close  of  the  war.  Its  first  charter  had  expired,  but  was 
renewed  in  1647,  the  limits  remaining  unchanged,  and  it  was 
under  this  charter  that  the  colonies  in  Guiana  were  conducted 
from  the  conclusion  of  the  Treaty  of  I'eace.  In  1674  this  charter 
expired,  and  the  States  General  resolved  to  create  a  new  Company. 
In  their  resolution  they  stated,  (B.  C,  I,  p.  174)  as  to  the  former 
Company  that  they  had  "observed  that  the  affairs  of  that  Com- 
pany had,  through  many  disasters,  fallen  into  such  a  state  that 
shareholders  in  the  same  have  suddenly  become  unwilling  to  con- 
tinue the  aforesaid  Company." 

The  charter  of  the  New  Dutch  West  India  Company  of  1674 
was  on  an  entirely  new  basis.  It  expressly  changed  the  territo- 
rial hmits.     It  said  (B.  C,  I,  p.  174): 

"  None  of  the  natives  or  inhabitants  of  this  or  any  other  country  shall 
be  permitted,  other  than  in  the  name  of  this  United  Company,  to  sail  and 
trade  upon  the  coasts  and  lands  of  Africa,  .  .  .  together  with  the 
places  of  Isekepe  [Essequibo]  and  Bauwmerona  fPomeroon],  situated  on 


246  CONSTITUTION    OF    WEST    INDIA    C031PANY. 

the  continent  of  America,  as  well  as  the  Islands  of  Curacao,  Aruba,  and 
Buonnire.  ...  So  that  the  further  limits  of  the  aforesaid  charter  shall 
be  open  to  all  the  inhabitants  of  this  State  without  distinction,  to  be  navi- 
gated and  traded  in  by  them  at  their  pleasure." 

While  the  charter  of  1621  took  in  the  whole  of  the  New  World, 
the  charter  of  16Y4  was  restricted  on  the  mainland  of  South 
America,  to  two  points,  namely,  Essequibo  and  Pomeroon.  Be- 
yond these  two  points  the  Company  had  no  rights.  The  powers 
of  government  that  were  given  them  applied  only  to  the  manage- 
ment of  the  colony  at  these  two  points,  and  the  separate  naming 
of  Essequibo  and  of  Pomeroon,  the  latter  a  small  stream  less  than 
forty  miles  away  by  the  coast,  show^ed  that  the  names  Were  used  as 
specific  designations  of  specific  points,  and  could  not  be  extended 
by  any  general  interpretation  to  cover  stretches  of  territory  be- 
yond the  specific  points  so  expressly  named.  The  charter  of  1674 
constituted,  on  the  part  of  the  Dutch  Government,  a  delimitation 
of  the  Company's  frontier. 

Under  this  charter  and  its  renewals,  always  including  the 
same  specific  points,  and  these  only,  the  Company  continued 
during  the  rest  of  its  history.  Of  course,  it  could  not  take  more 
than  was  granted  under  its  charter.  Nor  could  it  extend  its 
territories.  It  could  not  hold  adversely  to  the  government  creat- 
ing it,  supposing  the  title  to  the  adjoining  lands  to  have  been  in 
that  ijrovernment;  nor  could  it  hold  adversely  to  Spain,  if  the  title 
were  Spanish  except  within  its  charter  limits  of  Essequibo  and 
Pomeroon.  Its  chaitei-  was  renewed  in  1700,  1730,  1760  and  1762, 
each  time  without  change  of  limits  on  the  west.  The  Company 
was  dissolved  at  the  close  of  the  year  1791  (V.  C,  vol.  i,  p.  57),  and  its 
territories  then  leverted  to  the  State;  but  whatever  the  State  may 
have  taken  under  this  reversion,  it  could  take  no  more  than  that 
which  the  charter  had  named,  to  wit,  Essequibo  and  Pomeroon. 
The  boundaries  of  this  reversionary  title  were,  at  least  by  this 
time,  definitely  known. 

Of  course  the  Dutch   Government  could  not  take  from   the 


CONSTITUTION    OF    WEST    INDIA    COMPANY.  247 

Company  in  1791  more  than  the  territory  to  which  the  Company 
held  title,  and  the  Company  could  not  hold  title  to  anything  be- 
}ond  its  grant.  If  the  Netherlands  possessed  territory  at  the 
Treaty  of  Munster  beyond  that  defined  in  the  charter  of  1674, 
they  did  not  give  such  territory  to  the  Company.  They  must 
therefore,  unless  they  abandoned  it,  have  held  it  themselves. 
Yet  the  fact  is  indisputable  that  they  never  held,  or  imagined 
they  held  any  territory  except  that  which  finally  came  to  them 
by  the  reversion.  There  is  no  pretense  that  they  ever  held  a 
title  or  claimed  or  exercised  dominion  otherwise  than  to  the 
territory  covered  by  the  Company's  grant.  The  Government 
never  did  an  act,  made  a  claim,  or  passed  a  measure,  from  1674  to 
1791,  in  reference  to  this  territory  otherwise  than  by  or  through 
the  West  India  Company. 

Under  these  circumstances,  how  can  the  Netherland's  grantee, 
under  a  conveyance  of  the  "  Establishment  of  Essequibo,"  assert 
a  claim  to  anything  beyond  the  limits  of  the  charter  of  1674?  She 
cannot  contend  that  the  Company  held  more  than  its  grant.  She 
cannot  contend  that  the  Netherlands  held  anything,  or  pretended 
to  hold  anything,  except  their  reversionary  interest  in  the  Com- 
pany's territory.  Whence  comes  this  British  title,  spreading  out 
over  about  one  hundred  thousand  square  miles  of  land  west  of  the 
Essequibo  and  the  Pomeroon,  when  Great  Britain's  grantors  held 
only  these  two  specific  "  establishments"? 

The  British  Counter-Case  attempts  to  answer  by  the  startling 
proposition  that  the  territory  was  terra  nullius,  not  only  in  1648,  in 
1674,  and  in  1814,  but  even  at  the  date  of  the  Treaty  of  Arbitra- 
tion, and  that  as  Great  Britain  has  now  got  possession  of  it,  in 
defiance  of  the  Agreement  of  1850,  she  takes  it  as  first  occupant, 
even  though  her  possession  may  antedate  the  Treaty  only  by  a 
day.     It  says: 

"  Her  Majesty's  Government  would  be  entitled  to  retain  the  whole  ter- 
ritor)'  up  to  the  iScbomburgk  line,  on  the  simple  ground  that  at  the  date  of 
the  Treaty  of  Arbitration  they  were  in  possession,  and  that  the  territory  in 


248  CONSTITUTION    OF    WEST    INDIA    COMPANY. 

question  cannot  be  shown   to  have  ever  belonged  either  to  Spain  or  Vene- 
zuela. " 

The  terra  nullivs  theory  is  discussed  in  other  parts  of  this  Argu- 
ment. Here  it  is  only  introduced  to  show  one  of  the  many  dif- 
ficulties it  was  intended  to  overcome  It  n)akes  its  first 
appearance  in  the  last  part  (p.  114)  of  the  Counter-Case,  and  it 
may  be  regarded  as  the  last  resort  in  Great  Britain's  line  of 
defense. 

The  British  Case  has,  however,  another  answer  to  the  question 
of  the  charter  of  16Y4.  This  is  apparently  based  on  an  entire  mis- 
apprehension of  the  terms  of  that  instrument.  The  Case  states 
(pp.  28-9): 

"  In  1674  a  new  Chartered  Company  was  formed  ^vith  the  mine  rights 
and  limits  as  those  possessed  by  the  former  Dutch  Company.  Pomeroon 
and  Esseqniboare  specifically  mentioned  in  the  grant." 

The  above  is  directly  contrary  to  the  fact,  as  is  disclosed  by 
the  most  casual  perusal  of  the  provisions  of  the  charter.  The 
limits  were  distinctly  not  the  same  limits.  The  first  charter  had 
included  the  whole  of  the  New  World.  The  second  charter  in- 
cluded nothing  on  the  mainland  of  America  except  Essequibo  and 
Pomeroon.  These  points  are  not  named,  as  the  British  Case  seems 
to  suppose,  as  mere  descriptive  oi- illustrative  designations  of  parts 
of  a  larger  region,  but  they  are  named  as  the  limits  of  the  whole 
grant  as  to  the  mainland  of  America. 

While  the  charters  of  the  West  India  Company  gave  to  the 
Company  certain  powers  of  quasi-sovereignty  within  the  limits 
stated  in  the  charter,  namely,  Essequibo  and  Pomeroon,  the 
West  India  Company,  mindful  of  its  character  as  a  private 
corporation  and  of  the  commercial  purpose  of  its  existence, 
adopted  an  organization  entirely  in  accord  with  this  character 
and  purpose.  This  organization  not  only  as  to  the  super- 
visory direction  of  the  Boards  at  home,  but  also  as  to  the  ex- 
ecutive management  of  colonial  affairs  on  the  spot,  remained 
chiefly   that  of  a  trading   company.      The  local  head    at  first 


CONSTITUTION    OF    WEST    INDIA    COMPANY.  249 

called  "Conimandeur,"  but  later  "Director-General"  was  in  the 
nature  of  a  General  Manager.  The  local  advisory  body,  when  it 
came  to  be  constituted,  was  a  Court  of  Policy,  and  the  duties  of 
this  board  were  what  the  name  would  imply.  The  functions  of 
the  General  Manager  and  his  advisory  Board  related  almost  exclu- 
siv^ely  to  trade.  Police  powers  he  doubtless  had  and  exercised  in 
the  colony  itself.  He  took  cognizance  of  offenses  committed  by 
the  colonists.  He  settled  their  disputes,  and  made  regulations  for 
defense,  for  police,  and  for  the  general  health  and  welfare  when- 
ever necessary.  His  relation  to  the  colonists  included  that  sort  of 
disciplinary  supervision  which  is  necessary  in  a  new  country;  but 
by  far  the  largest  part  of  his  acts  were,  as  might  be  expected,  in 
fuitherance  of  the  purpose  for  which  he  as  well  as  the  Company 
existed,  namely,  the  regulation  and  promotion  of  trade. 

As  the  object  of  the  West  India  Company  was  to  make  money, 
its  interests  were  to  a  considerable  extent  adverse  to  those  of  the 
f'olonists.  A  constant  struggle  went  on,  which  only  terminated 
with  the  termination  of  the  Company  in  1791,  for  the  profits  of 
business  in  Essequibo.  The  Company  engaged  in  agriculture  to  a 
litnited  extent,  and  as  a  rule  rather  disastrously.  It  had  three  or 
four  plantations,  on  which  sugar,  coffee  and  indigo  were  more  or 
less  raised;  but  its  main  profit  was  from  trade,  and  in  order  to  de- 
rive a  profit  from  that  source,  it  was  necessary  to  keep  it  in  its 
own  hands  and  to  exclude  the  colonists.  Wherever  it  saw  a  pecu- 
liar chance  of  making  money  out  of  a  given  trade,  it  reserved  the 
trade  to  itself  and  prohibited  the  colonists  from  engaging  in  it. 
Numerous  instances  may  be  cited  of  such  prohibitions,  in  fact  the 
1  egulations  in  reference  to  trade  were  constantly  changing  to  meet 
these  considerations  of  possible  profit  to  the  Couipany.  Thus, 
fiom  time  to  time  the  colonists  were  excluded  from  the  horse 
trade,  the  balsam  trade,  the  trade  in  letter-wood,  the  Indian  slave 
trade,  the  annatto  trade,  or  the  trade  with  the  Orinoco,  and  only 
allowed  to  engage  in  it  through  the  Company,  or  by  paying  a  toll 
to  the  Company. 


250  CONSTITUTION    OF     WEST    INDIA    COMPANY. 

As  all  the  trade  of  the  colony  except  that  over  sea  was  in  or 
across  the  adjoining  territory  of  Spain  which  is  the  subject  of  the 
present  controversy,  these  prohibitions  became  operative  upon  the 
movements  of  the  colonists  in  that  territory,  and  the  reserved  trade, 
whatever  it  might  be  at  a  given  time,  was  conducted  by  the  Com- 
pany's agents.  For  a  long  time  it  employed  to  carry  on  this  trade 
certain  old  negro  slaves^  who  were  familiar  with  the  paths  of  the 
forest  and  with  the  Spanish  and  Indian  traders  who  were  to  be 
found  there  or  beyond  the  forest  in  the  savannas  of  Yuruari  and 
Cuyuni,  near  the  Orinoco.  Later  it  employed  Dutchmen,  more  or 
less,  in  this  work.  These  employees  were  of  three  classes,  the 
Outliers  {Uitleggers),  Byliers  {Bijleggers)  and  Outrunners  {Uitlop- 
ers).  The  Outliers  remained  at  specified  points,  and  constituted 
the  so-called  Postholders.  The  Byliers  were  their  assistants, 
when  they  had  any.  The  Outrunners  were  the  employees  || 
whose  duties  corresponded  to  those  of  the  old  negroes  above 
mentioned.  Except  the  diminutive  garrison,  which  in  1769 
comprised  only  39  men,  the  crew  of  the  Company's  yacht,  which 
watched  the  mouth  of  the  two  rivers,  and  the  Master  Planters  in 
charge  of  the  Company's  plantations,  these  were  all  the  persons  in 
the  Company's  employ.  They  were  official  in  the  sense  that  they 
were  trading  employees  of  the  Company;  but  they  exercised  no 
functions  of  government. 

ft  has  been  stated  that  the  Company  from  time  to  time  re- 
served to  itself  certain  branches  of  trade.  This  reservation,  how- 
ever, only  had  reference  to  its  own  colonists  of  Essequibo,  whom 
it  regarded,  and  not  without  reason,  as  its  business  competitors. 
The  prohibition  of  trade  did  not  apply  to  anybody  else,  because 
the  General  Manager  of  the  colony  did  not  pretend  to  have  either 
the  authority  or  the  ability  to  enforce  such  a  prohibition  against 
anybody  else.  The  Spaniards  and  the  Indians  were,  of  course, 
never  regarded  by  the  Commandeur  or  by  anybody  else,  as  being 
affected  by  such  prohibitions.  Neither  were  the  other  foreigners 
who  frequently  visited  and  traded  in  the  territory,  even  as  far  in 


CONSTITUTION    OF    WEST    INDIA    COMPANY.  261 

the  interior  as  tlie  Pariacot  Savanna,  especially  the  French  and  the 

I    English. 

In  order  to  enforce  the  trade  prohibitions  and  other  regulations, 
it  was  necessary  that  the  Commandeur  should  know  what  the 
colonists  were  about  and  their  movements  to  and  from  the  colony. 
In  the  exercise  of  the  disciplinary  authority  which  he  had  as 
General  Manager  of  the  settlement,  the  Commandeur  required 
them,  accordingly,  to  obtain  permission  to  go  out  of  the  territory. 
This  permission  was  evidenced  by  a  so-called  passport.  They 
were  simply  permits  to  be  absent  from  the  colony,  or  to  go  to 
certain  localities,  and  were  for  the  purpose  of  enforcing  the 
Company's  regulations  as  to  trade. 

Much  has  been  said  about  the  establishment  of  the  so-called 
"posts."  Two  of  these  posts,  those  at  Mahaicony  and  at 
Demerara,  were  in  the  annexed  district  east  of  the  Essequibo, 
and  therefore  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  present  controversy. 
Another  post  was  established  for  a  short  time  in  the  interior, 
and  another  existed  during  a  greater  part  of  the  Dutch  period 
on  the  Pomeroon  or  in  its  immediate  neighborhood,  at  Wakepo 
or  Moruca.  These  posts  were  points  where  an  Outlier  or  a 
Bylier  was  placed  for  purposes  of  trade  and  observation.  They 
also  served  some  purpose  in  connection  with  the  apprehen- 
sion of  runaway  slaves,  which  were  legarded  precisely,  being 
only  a  form  of  property,  as  strayed  animals  would  be  re- 
garded. The  post  at  Pomeroon  was  of  an  exceptional  char- 
acter. It  was  not  only  a  trading  depot,  but  it  became  the 
Colony's  custom-house,  as  it  lay  upon  what  they  clearly  regarded 

[)  as  the  frontier.  All  the  traffic  with  the  Orinoco,  which  was 
■xtensive  for  those  days,  passed  through  it,  and  paid  a  duty  there, 
in  cases  where  duties  were  levied.  The  post  in  Cuyuni  was  of  too 
short  duration  and  too  feebly  administered  to  be  an  important 
feature  of  anything.  As  far  as  it  went,  however,  it  also  was  a 
mere  trading  station,  and  it  had  none  of  the  features  of  a  frontier 
custom-house  which  marked  the  post  at  Pomeroon. 


I 


252  CONSTITUTION    OF    WEST    INDIA    COMPANY. 

The  relations  of  the  Colony  with  the  Indians  will  be  more  fully 
treated  later.  They  were  maintained  primarily  for  purposes  of 
trade,  especially  the  slave  trade,  which  became  extensive  after 
1735.  Incidentally,  they  were  conducted,  as  every  colony  would 
conduct  them,  so  as  to  ward  off  possible  attack  and  as  far  as 
might  be  to  promote  the  safety  of  the  settlement.  With  that 
object  the  colonial  authorities,  as  in  all  the  other  colonies  of  Amer- 
ica, took  many  precautions  to  regulate  the  conduct  of  the 
colonists  so  that  offense  should  not  be  given  to  the  Indians  and 
peaceful  relations  thereby  disturbed.  This  fact,  which  has  been 
used  in  the  British  case  as  the  foundation  for  a  claim  that  the 
Indians  were  protected  from  the  settlers,  was  merely  an  ordinary 
and  obvious  precaution  for  the  protection  of  the  colony  from  the 
Indians.  It  is  noticeable  here  as  being  an  additional  reason  for 
maintaining  a  close  and  constant  supervision  of  the  colonists  out- 
side of  the  limits  of  the  Colony. 

As  a  rule,  the  trade  prohibitions,  like  all  other  regulations, 
were  issued  in  the  form  of  general  prohibitions  and  are  so  referred 
to  in  the  Dutch  correspondence,  and  from  this  fact  it  is  contended 
that  an  inference  may  be  drawn  as  to  a  general  control  over  trade 
in  the  disputed  territory.  There  is  nothing  to  justify  such  an  in- 
ference. The  colonists  were  not  specifically  named  in  the  prohi- 
bitions because  there  was  no  need  of  naming  them.  No  one. 
whether  of  the  Company  at  home,  the  Colonial  Government  and 
its  employees,  the  colonists,  the  Spaniards,  the  Indians,  or  the 
other  foreigners,  ever  supposed  that  they  applied  to  anybody  but 
the  colonists.  So  with  all  the  other  general  regulations  and  pro- 
hibitions of  the  Company,  such  as  those  relating  to  passports,  the 
movements  and  other  acts  of  individuals,  and  the  like.  When 
the  Court  of  Policy  issued  an  order  that  no  one  should  stop  in 
Barima,  in  consequence  of  the  scandalous  conduct  of  Van  Rosen 
and  his  companions,  it  meant  that  no  one  of  the  colonists  should 
stop  in  Barima.  The  trade  monopoly  of  the  West  India  Com- 
pany, therefore,  which  is  spoken  of  as  an  exclusive  right  of  trade. 


CONSTITUTION    OF    WEST    INDIA    COMPANY.  253 

was  only  exclusive  of  other  Dutchmen.  The  exercise  of  this  ex- 
clusive right  was  not  territorial  in  any  sense,  but  personal.  It 
may  be  added  that  the  charter  by  its  very  terms  restricting  the 
acts  of  Dutch  subjects  in  all  the  territories  of  the  new  world, 
of  whatever  nation,  contemplated  this  personal  jurisdiction  over 
Dutchmen  on  foreign  soil. 

It  is  a  well  recognized  principle  that  the  dominion  of  a  State 
may  extend  over  its  subjects  or  citizens  wherever  they  may  be, 
and  it  was  this  personal  jurisdiction  or  control  that  the  Colonial 
authorities  exercised  over  the  colonists  outside  of  the  limits  of  the 
colony  itself.  The  union  in  these  authorities  of  two  distinct 
functions,  namely,  the  government  of  the  colonists  and  the 
prosecution  of  trade  in  which  the  colonists  were  competitors,  led 
to  a  more  extensive  application  of  the  principle  of  personal  con- 
trol than  is  usually  to  be  found  in  practice.  The  Company  used 
its  authority  over  the  colonists  to  sustain  its  trade  monopoly;  and 
it  is  sometimes  difficult  to  see  where  the  trade  functions  and  the 
governmental  functions  respectively  begin  and  end.  The  point, 
however,  is  that  the  control  was  in  no  sense  a  territorial  control 
except  as  exercised  within  the  limits  of  the  territory  of  the  colony. 
Outside  of  these  limits  it  operated  only  upon  the  persons  of  the 
colonists.  No  attempt  was  ever  madeto  exercise  any  supervision 
or  control  over  anybody  except  colonists  west  of  the  falls  of  the 
Cuyuni,  in  the  interior,  and  west  of  Moruca,  on  the  coast 

This  distinction  is  clearly  shown  by  the  controversy  which 
took  place,  between  1712  and  1718,  between  the  free  colonists  and 
the  Company  with  reference  to  the  trading  monopoly  of  the  lat- 
ter. In  this  the  position  of  the  Company  was  that  its  powers 
were  in  no  way  restricted  by  Dutch  territoiial  limits.  It  con- 
tended that  its  trade  monopoly  extended  to  the  control  of  its 
subjects  in  foreign  territory,  because  such  foreign  territory  was 
within  the  trade  limits  of  the  Company's  charter,  or,  as  it 
expressed  it,  "it  is  all  the  Company's  territory,  though  within 
the  power  of  the  Spanish  Crown." 


254  CONSTITUTION    OF    WKST    INDIA    COMPANY. 

By  this  the  Company  meant  to  say  simply  that,  as  against 
other  Dutchmen,  it  had  a  right  to  monopolize  trade  within  the 
territory  of  Spain.     This  is  fully  shown  by  the  correspondence. 

Thus,  Commandeur  Van  der  Hey  den,  writing  in  1713  (V.  C.,^ 

vol.  ii,  p.  T5)  to  the  Company,  said: 

In  pursuance  of  your  order,  the  prohibition  concerning  the  trading-i 
of  red  slaves,  annatto  dye,  and  balsam  copaiba,  issued  by  me  on  24  July  o: 
last  year,  shall  provisionally  be  left  standing,  and  be  executed  until  I  receive 
counter  orders:  although  this  causes  great  regret  among  the  free,  who  havi 
complained  about  this  at  various  times,  urging  that  they  did  not  claim  U 
trade  within  the  territory  of  the  Company,  but  asked  only  permission  to  d< 
so  on  Spanish  territory,  such  as  Orinoco,  Trinidad,  etc.;  which  I  refused 
them. 

And  in  a  report  of  the  same  year  he  added  (V.  C,  vol.  ii,  p.  76): 
Upon  this  subject  I  wrote  at  much  length  to  the  Chamber  at  the  time; 
therefore,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  copaiba  was  ere  this  sent  from  here  to 
the  Fatherland,  because  this  trade  has  been  permitted  to  be  free,  as  it  took 
place  outside  of  the  Company's  district  and  was  only  carried  on  upon 
Spanish  territory  in  the  river  Orinoco,  where  the  inhabitants  of  the  colonies 
Berbice  and  Surinam  trade  likewise  ;  however,  since  the  prohibition,  no 
copaiba  oil  has  to  my  knowledge  been  sent,  and  it  shall  remain  prohibited 
until  I  receive  counter  orders. 

The  Company  replied  on  May  14,  1714  (V.  C,  vol.  ii,  p.  76): 
"  We  leave  it  still  most  urgently  recommended  to  you  that  you  strictly 
maintain  the  prohibition  of  trade  in  red  slaves,  annatto  dye,  and  balsam 
copaiba ;  for  the  Company  desires  as  heretofore  to  keep  that  trade  ex- 
clusively for  itself,  in  order  thereby  in  a  measure  to  provide  for  the  costs 
and  heavy  expense  of  keeping  up  that  colony,  and  we  can  therefore  give 
no  heed  to  the  complaints  of  the  inhabitants. 

"  And,  as  for  their  protestations  that  they  are  not  going  to  trade  within 
the  territory  of  the  Company,  that  is  absurd  indeed ;  for,  although  Ori- 
noco, Trinidad,  etc.,  is  [fiic]  under  the  power  of  the  Spaniards,  still  it  also 
lies  within  the  charter  of  the  Company,  where  nobody  has  the  right  to 
trade  except  the  Company  and  those  to  whom  the  Company  gives  per- 
mission to  do  so  ;  so  that  it  all  is  the  territory  of  the  Company,  even 
though  we  have  no  forts  there.  And  it  is  an  untruth  that  an  enactment 
was  ever  published  making  that  trade  free;  but  the  contrary  is  clearly 
enough  to  be  seen  in  the  resolution  of  the  Board  of  Ten.     This  has  there- 


CONSTITUTION    OF    WEST    INDIA    COMPANY.  255 

fore  crept  in  there  only  through  neglect ;  for  which  reason  you  are  in- 
structed, as  above  stated,  to  see  closely  to  it  that  the  Company  suffer  no 
injury  herein." 

On  May  24,  1717,  the  ably- written  "  Memorial  of  the  Free 
Settlers  of  the  Colony  of  Essequibo  to  the  Directors  of  the  West 
India  Company  "  was  drawn  up,  showing  clearly  the  injury  that 
the  Company  was  doing  by  prohibiting  their  trade  in  Spanish  ter- 
ritory.    The  Memorial  said  (V.  C,  vol.  ii,  pp.  77-78): 

"  It  is  now  nearly  five  years  since  we  have  been  prohibited  by  the  Heer 
Commander  Pieter  van  der  Heijden,  acting  under  the  orders  of  Y.  N".  from 
trading,  as  well  within  as  without  this  Colony  in  Ked  Indian  slaves,  balsam, 
&c.;  through  which  prohibition  we  find  ourselves  deprived  not  only  of  the 
advantages  the  said  business,  however  small,  would  have  been  able  to  bring 
to  us,  but  further  must  see  the  profits,  which  were  to  be  expected  therefrom, 
accrue  before  our  eyes  to  our  neighbours,  to  wit,  the  colonists  of  Surinam 
and  Berbice,  and  seeing  that  it  has  pleased  Y.  N.  to  make  a  prohibition  of 
such  a  character  to  take  effect,  we  trusted  that  it,  through  the  serious  recom- 
mendation of  our  aforesaid  Heer  Commandeur  would  have  been  suspended, 
so  we  take  liberty,  Y.  N.,  simply  and  directly  to  show  how  little  advantage 
it  is  for  the  Noble  Company  that  the  aforesaid  prohibition  continues  to  re- 
main, how  much  prejudice  we  suffer  therefrom,  and  how  it  favours  the 
inhabitants  of  Surinam  and  Berbice,  and  also  encourages  them  to  push  on 
the  business  more  and  more  to  their  profit. 

"Your  Noblenesses  are  well   aware  that  it  is  permitted  to  those  of  the 

said  colonies  to  traffic  in  everything  they  can  get,  nothing  else  is  left  for  us 

than  the  bartering   for  Indian  vessels,  canoes  and   corials,  and  occasionally 

some   hammocks  or  cacao  from  the   Spaniards  in  Orinoco  ;  so  that  we  are 

I  restricted  in   a  river,  which   is  outside  of  the   territory  of  the  Noble  Com - 

j  pany,  where  the  same  has  no  more  power  than  a  private  merchant,  which  is 

I  in  the  Spanish  possession,  and  where  the  commonest  person  of  our  neigh- 

I  hours  is  allowed  to  c.irry  on  trade  in  anything  that  he  pleases,  as  well  as  the 

Noble  Company,  without  exception  from  what  place  they  come.     Y.  N.  are 

also  aware  (or  at  least  we  suppose  so)  that  Orinoco  is  a  river  which  is  ac- 

I  counted  as  the  property  of  the  King  or  Crown  of  Spain,  and  consequently 

,  that  nation  there  master,  and  whenever  a  vessel  from  Essequibo  (we  repre- 

!  sent  the  matter  truthfully)  be  now  come  in  Orinoco,  whether  it  be  for  trad 

.  ing  in  vessels  or  otherwise,  and  likewise  a  canoe  out  of  Surinam  or  Berbice 

find  itself  there,  and   that  according  to  the  fashion  of  the  Indian  traffic 

one  of  these  Indians  with  some  of  his  wares  (whether  it  be  slaves,  balsam. 


256  CONSTITUTION    OF    WEST    INDIA    COMPANY. 

or  anything  that  for  as  is  contraband,  and  nevertheless  to  those  of  our 
aforesaid  neighbours  is  allowed),  to  come  alongside  of  the  Es- 
sequibo  canoe  (to  Avhich  be  it  said  without  flattery  they  also 
sell  more  eagerly  partly  because  they  have  better  cargo,  partly  because 
they  are  able  to  come  to  an  agreement  with  us  more  peaceably), 
then  are  our  settlers  obliged  to  answer  the  Indians  that  such 
merchandize  cannot  be  traded  in  by  them,  thus  sending  them  back  to  tiie 
Surinam  canoe;  in  consequence  against  their  will  they  are  obliged  to  con- 
ti'ibute  to  the  profits  of  the  same,  or  otherwise  the  French  and  English 
barques  know  well  how  to  pass  up.  Yet  further,  whenever  a  canoe,  be  it  of 
Surinam  or  Berbice,  having  set  sail,  has  in  the  neighbourhood  of  this  river 
or  elsewhere  met  any  free  Indians  who  have  red  slaves  for  sale,  they  buy  the 
same  in,  yes,  bring  the  purchased  slaves  within  the  river,  deliver  them  to 
one  or  another  of  our  inhabitants,  proceed  on  their  voyage,  traffic  in  the 
Rivers  Marocco,  Weijne,  Barima,  Pomeroon,  Orinoco,  Trinidad,  and 
wherever  it  is  convenient  to  them,  aim  at  the  greatest  profit,  and  when  they 
have  got  everything  they  can  in  repassing,  take  in  again  their  slaves  that 
they  had  left  here,  and  push  on  their  journey  to  Surinam,  being  well 
pleased  that  the  Essequibo  inhabitants  were  oppressed  by  those  who  ought 
to  protect  them  and  their  gains  (from  which  the  Noble  Company  can  make 
no  profit)  taken  away  and  driven  into  the  Surinam  purse.  That  which  le- 
lates  to  their  business  presents  itself  to  us  very  painfully,  seeing  that  the 
Indians  get  just  as  good  payment  in  cargo,  no  matter  with  whom  they  deal, 
yet  they  of  Essequibo  are  much  the  best  supplied,  and  being  the  nearest 
situated  have  always  before  the  prohibition  been  on  the  most  friendly  terms 
with  them. 

"  We  cannot  so  far  comprehend  what  is  the  object  of  Y.  N.  in  prohibit- 
ing the  business  to  us,  seeing  that  you  cannot  hinder  those  from  Surinam 
and  Berbice — yea,  not  even  French,  English,  and  other  foreign  nations— it 
appearing  to  us  as  if  Y.  N.  wished  to  place  the  yoke  on  our  neck  alone,  be- 
cause, so  long  as  Essequibo  has  been  in  European  hands,  there  cannot  be 
any  instance  shown  that  the  inhabitants  of  this  Colony  alone  were  restricted 
so  as  not  to  be  able  to  carry  on  this  traffic,  &c." 

For  the  purposes  of  the  present  Argument,  it  makes  no  differ- 
ence whether  the  Company  were  right  or  wrong  in  their  theory. 
The  point  is  that  they  clearly  distinguished  between  territorial 
rights  and  the  right  of  exclusive  trade,  and  that  they  held  the 
latter  to  extend,  as  against  Dutch  subjects,  into  what  was  ad- 
mittedly the  territory  of  a  foreign  State.     No  conclusion,  there- 


CONSTITUTION    OF    WEST    INDIA    COMPANY.  257 

fore,  can  be  drawn  as  to  territorial  claims  from  any  assertion  of 
the  West  India  Company  to  exclusive  rights  of  trading. 

Another  result  of  the  constitution  of  the  Colonial  Government 
as  being  in  the  hands  of  a  trading  company  is  to  be  noticed  in  its 
important  bearing  upon  the  evidence  in  the  present  case.  Owing 
to  the  fact  that  the  Company  was  engaged  in  commercial  business, 
as  well  as  in  governing  a  colony,  and  that  its  representative  on 
the  spot  was  not  only  the  Colonial  Governor,  but  the  business 
agent  of  the  Company,  his  reports  and  correspondence  describe 
the  course  of  events  with  a  minuteness  and  detail  which  would 
never  be  found  in  the  archives  of  an  ordinary  Government  colony. 
This  correspondence  is  open  to  inspection,  and  has  been  examined 
and  in  laige  part  offered  in  evidence  by  both  parties.  It  is  so  full 
and  detailed  that  it  may  almost  be  said  to  give  the  daily  record  of 
every  event,  even  of  minor  importance,  in  the  history  of  the 
colony;  in  some  cases  it  is  actually  a  daily  record.  It  follows  that 
where  no  mention  is  to  be  found  in  the  Dutch  archives  of  an 
alleged  event  of  importance,  it  is  well-nigh  conclusive  evidence 
that  no  such  event  took  place.  Especially  as  to  questions  of  set- 
tlement and  political  control  it  may  be  safely  assumed  that,  what- 
ever other  persons  may  have  imagined,  there  was  no  such  thing  as 
Dutch  settlement  or  Dutch  control  beyond  that  which  the  Dutch 
archives  indicate.  If,  therefore,  the  Governor  of  Cumana  or 
Guayana  reports  that  a  rumor,  as  was  now  and  then  the  case,  of 
some  important  act  of  the  Dutch,  by  way  of  making  settlements  or 
exercising  control,  had  reached  his  ears,  it  may  safely  be  assumed 
that  the  rumor  was  without  foundation  unless  it  is  confirmed  by 
the  Dutch  archives.  It  is  impossible  to  read  these  latter  at  any 
point  without  being  struck  by  their  minuteness  of  detail;  and  no 
event,  the  record  of  which  is  omitted  in  the  archives,  can  be  proved 
in  the  present  proceeding  by  the  mere  rumor  from  another  source 
of  its  occurrence. 

The  Spanish  Colonial  authorities,  on  the  other  hand,  reported 
little  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies  that  can  be  called  a  record  of 


258  CONSTITUTION    OF    WEST    INDIA    COMPANY. 

current  events,  certainly  nothing  with  reference  to  the  course  of 
trade.  Substantially  everything  that  we  have  on  this  subject, 
even  as  to  the  trade  of  the  Spaniards  themselves,  comes  from  the 
Dutch  archives.  In  1750  the  Spaniards  were  coming  down  the 
Cuyuni  in  such  numbers  to  trade  in  Essequibo  that  a  Committee 
was  actually  appointed  to  report  a  plan  by  which  they  could  be  in- 
duced to  defer  their  traffic  until  they  reached  the  lower  Essequibo, 
where  the  Company's  warehouse  and  principal  plantations  were 
situated.  (B.  C,  App.  II,  p.  68.)  The  Spanish  trade  in  hides, 
tobacco  and  live  stock  with  Moruca  by  way  of  the  Barima  was 
likewise  a  very  extensive  traffic,  carried  on  wholly,  in  the  later 
periods,  by  Spaniards.  But  as  to  these  two  facts,  proved  conclu- 
sively by  the  Dutch  records  and  of  such  vital  importance  in  this 
controversy,  not  a  word  is  to  be  found  in  the  Spanish  archives. 
The  reports  written  by  the  Colonial  Governors  were  always  of  a 
general  character,  in  the  nature  of  extended  dissertations  upon  the 
general  welfare  of  the  colony,  and  it  was  only  when  some  special 
occasion  arose  for  it  that  they  dealt  with  passing  events  at  all.  In 
the  construction  of  these  general  reports  the  Governors  dealt 
largely  with  subjects  which  they  only  knew  from  hearsay,  especi- 
ally in  reference  to  any  movements  of  the  Dutch.  Under  these 
circumstances,  no  conclusion  is  to  be  drawn  from  a  failure  to  refer 
to  any  given  occurrence,  for  such  occurrences,  unless  there  was 
special  occasion  for  doing  it,  were  rarely  or  never  reported. 


CHAPTER  Vm. 
THE  DUTCH  TITLE-CONQUEST. 

The  Dutch  title,  to  such  possessions  as  they  had  in  Guiana  in 
1648,  was  acquired  by  war;  is  a  title  by  conquest  and  was  con- 
firmed and  perfected  by  the  Treaty  of  Munster. 

In  the  British  Case  (p.  21)  it  is  said: 

"  lu  1581  the  Dutch  had  formally  renounced  the  sovereignty  of  Spain, 
and  the  war  then  raging  between  the  two  countries  continued  till  1648, 
with  an  interval  of  partial  truce  from  1609  till  1621." 

The  Dutch  then  entered  Guiana  while  they  were  in  a  state  of 
war  with  Spain,  a  war  for  independence  on  the  part  of  the  Dutch, 
and,  on  the  part  of  Spain,  to  reduce  its  rebellious  subjects  and  to 
re-establish  its  sovereignty. 

If  the  Dutch  were  the  victors,  all  Spanish  territory  actually 
held  by  the  Dutch  at  the  close  of  the  war  became  theirs  by  con- 
quest—the title  to  be  perfected  by  a  treaty  of  peace. 

If  Spain  was  victorious,  the  attempt  to  introduce  a  new  state 
would  fail;  there  could  be  no  treaty,  for  there  would  be  but  one 
sovereignty.  Spain's  old  title  and  sovereignty  would  be  re- 
established, and  Essequibo  would  be  a  Spanish  colony. 

It  may  be  said  that  to  allege  a  Dutch  title  to  Essequibo  by  con- 
quest from  Spain  is  to  assume  a  prior  Spanish  title.  We  reply 
that  the  manner  and  circumstances  of  the  Dutch  occupancy  and 
the  cession  taken  from  Spain  were  a  recognition  by  the  Dutch  of 
Spain's  prior  right. 

It  is  not  necessary  that  Spain's  title  should  have  been  a  perfected 
title,  or  that  the  places  seized  by  the  Dutch  should  have  been  at 
the  time  in  the  actual  occupation  of  Spain.  It  is  enough  that  the 
Dutch  entered  in  war  to  seize  and  appropriate  Spain's  title — what- 
ever it  was — by  force,  and  at  the  close  of  the  war  took  by  treaty  a 
release  of  that  title.     As  against  Spain,  the  Dutch  limits  must  be 


260  THE   DUTCH  TITLE. 

determined  by  the  rules  applicable  to  a  conquest,  and  by  the  terms 
of  the  treaty  of  peace.  The  Dutch  entry  in  Guiana  was  an  act  of 
war,  not  the  peaceful  appropriation  of  lands  believed  to  be  unap- 
propriated, and,  by  the  treaty  of  peace,  the  Dutch  asked  and  took 
a  transfer  to  themselves  of  Spain's  title  to  Essequibo,  which  they 
had  seized  in  war  and  then  held. 

Spain's  title  was  appropriated  by  conquest,  and  was  extin- 
guished only  so  far  as  the  actual  Dutch  occupation  extended. 
The  Treaty  of  Peace  runs  in  those  terms,  and  implies  that  a 
title  to  the  territory  ceded  was  derived  from  Spain,  and  that 
beyond  the  cession  the  territory  was  Spain's.  In  other  words, 
that  prior  claim  or  title  in  Spain,  which  is  necessary  to  give  the 
Dutch  acquisition  the  character  of  a  conquest,  was  conceded  by 
the  Dutch.  They  expressly  set  up  a  title  to  their  New  World  pos- 
sessions based  upon  conquest  from  Spain,  in  the  New  Netherland 
controversy,  as  we  shall  see.  Spain  claimed  the  Essequibo  terri- 
tory and  defended  that  claim  by  arms.  The  Dutch,  by  arms, 
effected  an  appropriation  of  Spain's  claims,  and  so  were  able  to  set 
up,  as  they  did,  the  Spanish  title  against  other  claimants. 

They  cannot  say  they  took  nothing  in  Essequibo  from  Spain, 
either  by  conquest  or  cession.  Spain  parted  with  her  title — de- 
prived herself  of  the  right  to  recover  Essequibo -and  the  Dutch, 
while  holding  that  title,  cannot  free  themselves  from  the  limi- 
tations that  attach  to  it. 

Until  the  treaty  of  peace  was  signed  and  Dutch  independence 
recognized,  Spain's  right  to  take  —if  she  could — every  foot  of  ter- 
ritory possessed  by  the  Dutch,  must  be  conceded.  In  the  Treaty 
of  Munster  the  Dutch  distinctly  recognized  the  fact  that  Spain^ 
as  sovereign  of  revolted  Portugal,  had  still  a  title  to  '*  the  places 
in  Brazil,"  though  they  were  then  as  much  in  the  effective  control 
of  Portugal  as  Essequibo  was  in  the  control  of  the  Dutch.  By 
that  treaty  they  took  an  absolute  assignment  of  Spain's  title  to 
Essequibo,  and  a  conditional  assignment  to  "the  places  in  Brazil," 


CONQUEST.  261 

both  at  the  time  in  the  occupation  of  provinces  of  Spain  that  had 
revolted  and  declared  their  independence. 

The  war  between  Spain  and  the  States  General  was  waged 
with  a  bloody  intenstity  in  the  Low  Countries,  but  it  was  not 
limited  to  that  region.  The  Dutch  carried  it  into  the  distant 
possessions  of  Spain;  sent  out  their  fleets  to  capture  Spanish 
Colonies,  to  harry  the  coasts  of  Spain's  distant  possessions,  to  de- 
stroy her  commerce  and  to  seize  her  ships.  This  from  Brodhead 
gives  a  comprehensive  sketch  of  these  military  operations: 

"  The  Company  laid  waste  Bahia,  which,  independent  of  the  incurred 
damages,  cost  the  King  of  Spain  over  ten  millions  to  recover  it;  and, 
also,  captured,  plundered,  and  destroyed  Porto  Eico,  Margarita,  Sancta 
Martha,  St.  Thomas,  Guiana,  and  sundry  other  places; 

Took  and  retained  Pernambuco,  and  Tamarica,  whereby  the  King  of 
.Spain  hath  lost  over  a  million  and  a  half  of  yearly  revenue.     .     .     . 

Prevented  the  Portuguese,  by  the  continual  cruizing  of  our  ships  on 
the  coast  of  Brazil,  from  bringing  over  their  sugars  and  other  prod- 
uce.    .     .     . 

Also,  captured  his  fleet  from  New  Spain,  and  thrice  made  prize  of  the 
rich  Honduras  ships ;  took,  moreover,  in  divers  parts  of  Africa  and 
America,  over  a  hundred  of  his  vessels,  most  of  which  had  full  freights, 
including  several  of  his  best  galleons  ;  and  burnt  and  destroyed  nearly  as 
many,  if  not  more,  that  had  ran  ashore."  (Brodhead,  Docs.,  vol.  i, 
p.  63.) 

Even  the  truce  of  1609,  as  the  British  Case  admits,  was 
"  partial"  and  not  effective.  The  Dutch  knew  that  Spain  claimed 
Guiana;  that  she  was  engaged  in  settling  it;  that  she  was  draw- 
ing from  her  American  colonies  the  wealth  that  enabled  her  to 
continue  the  war;  that  some  of  her  treasure-ships  rendezvoused 
in  the  Orinoco,  and  that  in  the  interior  of  that  province  there 
was  believed  to  be  a  fabulous  store  of  gold.  Guiana  was  a 
vulnerable  and  exposed  point.  The  Spanish  garrisons  were  not 
strong,  and  a  "  sedem  belli  "  there  offered  great  opportunities  to 
harass  Spain  and  to  divert  from  her  treasury  to  the  Dutch 
treasury  a  great  store  of  the  precious  metals.  It  also  offered  an 
opportunity  to  cripple  and  appropriate  the  trade  of  Spain  to  the 


262  THE   DUTCH   TITLE. 

West  Indies.     It  would  seem,  therefore,  unduly  to  discredit  the 

intelligence  and  strategy  of  the  Dutch  to  assume  that  they  did 

not  carry  the  war  thither.     We  should   expect   them    to  do  so, 

and  we  find  that  they  did. 

In  a  minute  made  hy  the  Estates  of  Zeeland,  in  November, 

1599,  we  read: 

''In  the  matter  of  the  req^uest  of  the  Burgomaster  of  Middelburg, 
Adriaen  ten  Haeft,  setting  forth  how  that  in  the  preceding  year,  1598,  at 
heavy  cost  to  himself,  he  caused  to  be  investigated  on  the  continent  of 
America  many  different  rivers  and  islands, — and  how  that  in  this  voyage 
were  discovered  various  coasts  and  lands  where  one  could  do  notable  damage 
to  the  King  of  Spain  "  (V.  C,  vol.  ii,  p.  12). 

Commenting  upon  this,  Professor  Burr,  in  his  report  to  the 
American  Commission  (V.  C.-C,  vol.  ii,  p.  46),  says: 

"  What  it  seems  safe  to  infer  is  that  this  was  the  beginning  of  Zeeland's 
dealings  with  these  unsettled  coasts  of  the  West — that  the  coasts  in  view 
were  conceived  of  as  belonging  to  the  King  of  Spain,  and  that  the  enter- 
prise was  one  of  hostile  aggression." 

In  a  note  Professor  Burr  says: 

"It  should  perhaps  be  remembered  that  it  was  in  this  year,  1599,  that 
there  sailed  forth  from  the  Zeeland  port  of  Flushing  the  Dutch  armada 
under  Pieter  van  der  Does,  which,  after  taking  a  town  in  the  Canaries  and 
avenging  at  the  Isle  de  Principe  that  unsuccessful  enterprise  of  Balthazer  de 
Moucheron  in  1598  which  Berg  van  Dussen  Muilkerk  calls  the  'earliest 
attempt  at  colonization  from  out  the  Netherlands,'  sent  seven  or  eight  of  its 
ships  across  the  Atlantic  to  ravage  the  coast  of  Brazil.  They  returned, 
with  great  booty  of  sugar,  in  the  following  year  "  (V.  C.-C,  vol.  ii,  p.  46). 

We  have  the  report  of  a  Dutch  expedition  to  Guiana — probably 
the  very  first—in  159Y-8,  by  Cabeliau,  clerk  of  the  expedition. 
The  States  General  voted  aid  towards  the  arming  of  the  expedition, 
and  its  destination  was  *' Guiana,  in  the  Kingdom  of  Peru"(V. 
C.-C,  vol.  ii,  p.  43). 

By  the  report  of  Cabeliau  the  States  General  were  advised  that 
the  Spaniards  were  established  at  Santo  Thome,  and  that  there  was 
then  a  Spanish  Governor  over  all  the  coasts  to  the  Amazon. 


CONQUEST.  263 

He  further  says: 

"  To  sum  up  briefly,  there  is  up  that  river  (Caroni)  in  the  kingdom  of 
Guiana  certainly  much  gold,  as  we  were  told  by  the  Indians  from  there 
as  well  as  by  onr  Indians  here  present,  and  the  Spaniards  themselves  say 
so;  but  for  our  people  busied  with  trade  it  is  not  feasible  to  expect  any 
good  therefrom,  unless  to  that  end  considerable  expeditions  were  equipped  to 
attack  the  Spaniards.  This  is  the  only  means  of  learning  the  whereabouts 
of  any  gold  mines  from  the  Indians;  for  whosoever  are  enemies,  and  bear 
enmity  to  the  Spaniards,  are  friends  with  the  Indians,  and  they  hope 
steadily  that  they  shall  be  delivered  from  the  Spaniards  by  the  Dutch  and 
the  English,  as  they  told  us  "  (U.  S.  Com.  Rep.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  19-20;  for  a 
dliferent  translation  see  B.  C,  I,  p.  21). 

That  is  to  say,  we  may  get  some  trade  to  these  coasts,  but 
if  we  seek  to  eater  the  country — to  appropriate  its  mines,  &c.— 
we  must  fight  the  Spaniards. 

There  is  an  anonymous  petition  to  the  States  General,  given 
in  the  British  Case  (App.  I,  p.  22),  to  which  the  date  of  1603  is 
ascribed  (with  an  interrogation)  in  the  table  of  contents. 

This  document  was  found  by  Professor  Burr  in  the  archives 
at  The  Hague  and  examined  by  him.  He  believes  it  to  be  the 
"  work  of  Willem  Usselinx,  the  well-known  originator  of  the 
Dutch  West  India  Company  "  (V.  C.-C,  vol.  ii,  p.  49).  We  quote 
from  this  document: 

"  *  *  *  but  the  most  important  and  principal  thing  that  your 
Lordships  have  to  observe  is  the  suitable  situation  in  case  chance  or  your 
Lordships  should  in  the  future  resolve  (in  imitation  of  the  Komans)  to 
divert  this  long  war  from  these  lands,  and  carry  it  thither.  T\\\&  province 
being  the  most  suitable  and  best  situated  place  in  all  America  in  which 
to  establish  an  arsenal  and  a  sedem  belli,  where  the  war  could  easily  feed 
itself  or  be  carried  on  and  supported  by  all  kinds  of  foreign  nations  "  (B.  C. 
App.  I,  p.  25). 

To  be  sure,  this  writer,  in  the  opening  paragraph  of  his  petition, 
speaks  of  the  region  as  a  country  which  "has  now  recently  by 
some  of  the  merchant-ships  of  this  country  been  discovered  sit- 
uated in  America  and  named  the  Province  of  Guiana  "  (B.  C,  I, 


I 


264  THE  DUTCH  TITLE. 

p.  22);  but  the  States  General  were  too  well-informed  to  bring 
forward  a  Dutch  discovery. 

The  petition  gives  the  bounds  of  the  province  on  the  west  as 
including  Trinidad  and  the  Punta  de  Araya  salt  deposits  (U.  S. 
Com.  Rep.,  vol.  ii,  p.  33).  This  might  seem  at  first  to  imply 
mis-information,  but  in  fact  the  occupation  of  the  island  of 
Trinidad  by  the  Spanish  was,  as  we  have  seen,  a  part  of  their 
occupation  of  Guiana.  Berrio  indicated  it  as  a  secure  seat  from 
which  the  occupation  of  Guiana  might  be  prosecuted,  and  it  was 
for  a  time  under  the  Governor  of  Guiana. 

This  anonymous  writer  does  not  fail  to  take  note  of  the  dan- 
ger to  be  feared  from  Spain  and  Portugal,  if  the  Dutch  should  at- 
tempt settlements  there.  He  relies,  however,  upon  the  difficulty 
of  access  to  the  harbors,  for  safety.  It  must  be  kept  in  mind  that 
before  the  date  ascribed  to  this  paper  the  Spaniards  were  estab- 
lished at  Santo  Thome  and  in  the  Island  of  Trinidad.  The  interest, 
however,  in  this  petition,  is  in  the  suggestion  of  a  war  policy, 
that  of  the  Romans,  namely,  to  carry  the  war  into  the  enemy's 
country,  and  to  "establish  an  arsenal  and  a  sedem  belli  "  there; 
and  in  the  further  suggestion  that  the  States  General  organize  an 
"  Indian  Chamber  "  to  carry  out  the  scheme.  The  date  assigned 
to  this  petition  is  six  years  before  the  truce. 

Van  Meteren,  a  contemporary  of  Usselinx,  writing  in  1607, 
represents  him  as  putting  forward  these  views: 

"  For  it  was  evident  (he  urged)  that  the  Spaniard  had  still  many  foes 
in  America,  or  the  West  Indies,  who  were  strong  and  not  easy  to  conquer, 
and  who,  with  a  little  help,  would  be  able  to  resist  the  Spaniards,  especially 
if  one  should  furnish  them  weapons  and  should  teach  them  to  use  horses,; 
and  also  to  move  and  manipulate  troops,  so  as  to  make  the  Spaniard  show 
his  back  "  (V.  C-0.  ii,  p.  50). 

Van  Meteren  also  refers  to  a  prospectus  drawn  up  by  Usselinx 
in  1604,  in  which  he  speaks  of  the  Indians  there  as 

"*  *  *  good  and  friendly  folk  desiring  the  acquaintance  and 
friendship  of    the    Dutch  people,    whom  they  knew   to  be  foes  of  the 


CONQUEST.  265 

Spaniards,  in  order  to  be  helped  by  them  against  the  Spauish  tyranny,  etc., 
especially  the  people  of  the  interior,  these  being  not  barbarians  but  tolerably 
civilized  and  organized,  not  going  naked  but  clothed,  and  well  disposed." 
(V.  C-C,  vol.  ii,  p.  51.). 

This  reference  to  a  tribe  of  semi-civilized  Indians,  supposed  to 
live  in  the  interior  of  Guiana,  and  the  reference,  in  the  petition  of 
1603,  to  some  valuable  gold  mines  that  had  been  discovered,  sug- 
gests that  Usselinx's  scheme  involved  seizing  the  whole  of  Guiana 
when  they  had  made  the  "  Spaniard  show  his  back." 

The  suggestion  that  the  Indians  should  be  used  against  the 
Spaniards  was  not  allowed  to  wait  the  expiration  of  the  truce. 
The  British  Case  (App.  I,  p.  35  et  seq.),  with  the  purpose  of  showing 
the  presence  of  the  Dutch  on  the  Guiana  coast,  prints  an  account 
from  Spanish  sources  of  the  state  of  things  about  1614  at 
Trinidad  and  on  the  mainland.  Some  of  these  statements, 
probably  based  on  rumor,  were  unfounded,  but  so  far  as  the  ac- 
count is  taken  to  prove  the  presence  of  the  Dutch,  it  shows  a 
hostile  presence— a  state  of  war.  The  Dutch,  alUed  with  the 
Caribs,  were  threatening  and  attacking  the  Spaniards;  and  the 
latter,  in  return,  were  attacking  the  Dutch  and  seeking  to  drive 
them  from  the  coasts.  These  quotations  from  the  British  Case 
(p.  22)  confess  a  state  of  war  on  the  Guiana  coast: 

"In  that  year  (1613)  the  Spaniards  surprised  and  destroyed  one  of  their 
(Dutch)  Settlements  upon  the  River  Corentin." 

Again: 

"In  1614  the  Dutch  invested  the  Island  of  Trinidad  in  conjunction 
with  the  Caribs.  Reinforcements  and  ammunition  were  sent  from  Spain 
with  a  view  to  protecting  that  island,  which  was  in  imminent  danger." 

The  Dutch  were  trying  to  possess  by  arms  and  hold  by  force, 
not  only  places  where  the  Spaniards  were  not  actually  present, 
but  the  Spanish  posts  and  forts. 

The  British  Case  (p.  23),  after  referring  to  the  destruction  of 
Santo  Thome,  in  1618,  by  Raleigh,  says: 


I 


266  THE  DUTCH  TITLE. 

"At  this  period  the  Spaniards  were  definitely  excluded  from  the  coast 
to  the  eastward  of  the  Orinoco.  This  appears  to  have  been  frequented  by 
them  for  trading  purposes  at  the  close  of  the  sixteenth  century;  but  after  the 
advent  of  the  English  in  1595  and  of  the  Dutch  in  (at  the  latest)  1598,  and 
the  succeeding  years,  it  became  more  and  more  inaccessible  to  them.  The 
English  and  Dutch  allied  themselves  with  the  Carib  Indians  against  the 
Spaniards;  and  after  the  sack  of  Santo  Thome  by  Raleigh  in  1618  the 
Arawaks,  till  then  the  friends  of  the  Spaniards,  also  turned  against  them," 

This  is  a  highly  instructive  statement.  It  concedes  that  the 
Spaniards,  before  1618,  '^  frequented"  the  coasts  of  Guiana  "for 
trading  purposes,"  which  was,  according  to  Great  Britain's  defin-| 
ition  of  effective  occupation,  to  use  the  resources  of  the  country.] 
The  Dutch  up  to  this  time  had  no  colony  on  that  coast.  So  far 
as  they  were  there  it  was  "for  trading  purposes"  only.  We 
learn,  in  the  next  place  that  at  this  period  the  Spaniards  were 
definitely  "excluded'^  by  the  arms  of  the  Dutch  and  English, 
combined  with  the  Caribs,  and  the  coasts  of  Guiana  made  "  more 
and  more  inaccessible  to  them." 

We  digress  to  remark  that  it  must  be  a  little  awkward  for 
Great  Britain  now  to  argue  that  Spain's  failure  to  appropriate 
the  resources  of  Guiana  left  these  coasts  open  to  a  peaceful  occu- 
pation, as  upon  an  abandonment.  The  facts  stated  in  the 
British  Case  are  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  theory  of  a  peaceful 
entry  by  the  Dutch.  Spain  was  "excluded,"  and  by  arms;  and 
whether  the  territory  was  actually  or  only  constructively  a 
Spanish  possession— the  title  acquired  by  the  Dutch  is  a  title  by 
conquest,  and  can  be  no  broader  than  the  actual  exclusion.  A 
title  accomplished  by  the  destruction  of  Spanish  posts  and  the 
forcible  exclusion  of  Spaniards,  is  not  a  title  by  occupatio,  and 
cannot  claim  for  itself  the  benefit  of  the  constructive  extensions 
that  apply  to  such  a  title.  The  entry  of  the  Dutch  at  the  Esse- 
quibo  followed  the  exclusion  of  the  Spaniards.  Professor  Burr, 
in  his  report  to  the  American  Commission  on  "The  Dutch  in 
Essequibo"  (V.  C-C,  vol.  ii,  pp,  58-88),  we  think  conclusively 


CONQUEST.  267 

shows  that  the  Dutch  did  not  occupy  Essequibo  before  1625.     The 
Spaniards  had  been  there  before  them. 

At  the  end  of  the  truce,  the  suggestion  of  the  anonymous 
petitioner  of  1603  was  put  into  effect  by  the  organization  of  the 
Dutch  West  India  Company.  We  are  told  by  the  British  Case 
(p.  12)  that: 

*'  In  1621,  upon  the  termination  of  the  twelve  years'  truce  between 
Spain  and  the  Netherlands,  a  Company,  called  the  West  India  Company, 
was  formed  under  a  Charter  granted  by  the  Dutch  Government  for  the 
purpose  of  trade  and  colonization  in  the  Indies.  At  this  date  there  were 
ah'eady  Dutch  settlers  in  Essequibo.  The  Company  at  once  estabhshed 
there  an  organized  Colony,  which  was  held  and  governed  by  Companies 
under  successive  Charters  until  the  year  1791." 

Berthold  Fernow   (Winsor,  vol.    iv,  pp.   395-396)  says  of  the 

Dutch: 

"They  had  studied  the  weak  points  of  that  vast  Spanish  empire  'where 
the  sun  never  set,'  and  found  in  the  war  with  Spain  a  good  excuse  to  make 
use  of  their  knowledge,  and  to  send  their  ships  to  the  West  Indies  and  the 
Spanish  main  to  prey  upon  the  commerce  of  their  enemies.  The  first 
proposition  to  make  such  an  expedition,  submitted  to  the  States-General  in 
1581  by  an  Englisli  sea-captain,  Beets,  and  refused  by  them,  was  un- 
doubtedly conceived  in  a  purely  commercial  spirit.  Gradually  the  idea  of 
destroying  the  transatlantic  resources  of  Spain,  and  thereby  compelling 
her  to  submit  to  the  Dutch  conditions  of  peace  and  to  the  evacuation  of 
Belgium,  caused  the  formation  of  a  West  India  Company,  which,  author- 
ized to  trade  to  and  tight  the  Spaniards  in  American  waters,  appears  in 
the  light  of  a  necessary  political  measure,  without,  however,  throwing  in 
the  background  the  necessity  of  finding  a  shorter  route  to  the  East 
Indies." 

He  says  that  as  early  as  1606  a  plan  for  the  organization  of  a 
West  India  Company  was  drawn  up,  but  that  the  project  failed: 

"A  peace  or  truce  with  Spain  was  about  to  be  negotiated,  and  Olden- 
barnevelt,  then  Advocate  of  Holland  and  one  of  the  most  prominent  and 
influential  members  of  the  peace  party,  foresaw  that  the  organization  of  a 
West  India  company  with  the  avowed  purpose  of  obtaining  most  of  its 
profits  by  preying  on  Spanish  commerce  in  American  waters  would  only 
l)iolong  the  war.     ...     It  was  only  when  Oldenbarnevelt,  accused  of 


I 


268  THE  DUTCH  TITLE. 

high  treason,  had  been  lodged  in  prison,  and  the  renewal  of  the  war  with 
Spain  had  been  commended  to  the  public,  that  the  scheme  was  taken  up 
again,  in  1618"  {Id.,  pp.  396-397). 

The  organization  of  the  West  India  Company  was  not  con- 
sistent with  the  truce,  for  it  contemplated  war  upon  Spain's 
colonies  and  commerce  in  the  West  Indies;  and,  while  hostilities 
were  actually  allowed  there,  they  could  not  be  thus  publicly  and 
officially  sanctioned. 

About  six  months  before  the  first  charter  of  the  West  India 
Company  was  granted,  Cornells  Janssen  Vianen,  in  a  memorial 
to  the  Prince  of  Orange,  after  referring  to  his  own  visits  to 
Guiana,  said: 

"  Sixthly,  regarding  the  opinion  sometimes  advanced,  that  notable  profits 
might  be  obtained  through  diverse  products  and  fruits  which  might  be 
found  or  raised  on  the  mainland  of  America,  between  Brazil  on  the  east  and 
the  river  Orinoco  on  the  west,  in  and  about  the  river  Amazon. 

I  answer,  that  several  of  our  Netherlanders  have  as  yet  attained  little  by 
the  aforesaid  means,  although  up  to  now  they  engage  there  in  peaceful 
trade;  and  if  an  attempt  were  made  with  superior  force  to  gain  the  land 
there  and  by  such  cultivation  introduce  products  of  Brazil  and  the  West 
Indies,  the  Spaniards  would  beyond  doubt  seek  forcibly  to  prevent  this,  the 
more  so  as  thereby  their  navigation  to  Brazil  and  the  West  Indies  would  be 
impeded"  (V.  0.  vol.  ii,  p.  17). 

We  are  further  told  in  the  British  Case  (p.  12)  that,  *'  between 
1621  and  1648,  during  the  Thirty  Years'  War,  the  Dutch  com- 
manded the  whole  of  the  coast  of  Guiana  and  as  far  as  Trinidad." 

Manifestly  this  means  a  military  control,  and  of  territory 
claimed  by  Spain.  For  no  pretense  has  ever  been  made  that,  by  a 
peaceful  occupation,  the  Dutch  ever  had  or  claimed  such  bounds 
as  are  here  ascribed. 

But  we  are  not  left  to  inferences;  for  the  British  Case  proceeds 
to  inform  us  (p.  12),  that  "the  Dutch  were  allied  with  the  Indians 
against  the  Spaniards  of  Sanot  Thom6  and  Trinidad.  In  1629  and 
again  in  1637  they  sacked  the  settlement  of  Santo  Thom6,  and  in 


CONQUEST.  269 

the  latter  year  they  also  raided  the  Island  of  Trinidad  and  burnt 
the  Spanish  settlements  there." 
And  again  (p.  25): 

"  In  163'.)  the  English  and  Dntch,  nnder  the  command  of  Adrian  Jaiisz 
Pater,  attacked  and  destroyed  Santo  Thome,  and  afterwards  fortified  them- 
selves in  the  branches  and  creeks  of  the  River  Orinoco." 

This  alleged  occupation  of  the  Amacura  and  Barinaa  is  put  for- 
ward as  the  origin  of  the  Dutch  title  to  that  region.  But  if  any 
title  was  thus  acquired  it  was  clearly  one  by  conquest. 

We  are  further  told  (p.  13),  that  "during  the  whole  of  this 
period  "  the  Dutch  "  were  masters  of  the  sea  in  the  neighbourhood 
of  the  mouths  of  the  Orinoco." 

In  the  British  Counter-Case  (p.  131,  par.  T)  we  are  told: 

"It  is  true  that  the  earliest  relations  of  the  Dutch  with  Guiana  and 
with  tlie  Essequibo  related  to  trade  and  hostile  operations  against  the 
Spafiiards,  but  these  relations  immediately  developed  into  the  taking  of 
possession  of  parts  of  the  country." 

This  seems  to  us  a  full  admission  that  the  occupation  of  Esse- 
quibo was  an  act  of  war. 

Winsor  gives  us  this  account  of  Dutch  naval  operations: 

"  The  Dutchman  Spilbergen  was  raiding  here  in  i6i4,  and  ten 
years  later,  and  in  the  years  following,  the  Dutch  admirals,  to  distract 
the  attention  of  Spain  while  the  patriots  of  Holland  were  struggling 
for  their  independence,  hovered  here  and  on  the  Gulf  coast  with  their 
fleets;  damaging  towns,  intercepting  Spanish  ships,  and  sometimes  mak- 
ing a  great  capture,  as  when  Admiral  Heyn  captured  the  silver  fleet 
near  Matanzas,  Cuba,  in  1628."  (Narrative  and  critical  history,  vol.  viii, 
p.  198.) 

Especial  provision  was  made  in  the  regulations  adopted  by  the 
West  India  Company  for  Colonies,  in  1028,  for  the  capture  of 
prizes. 

The  attack  upon  Santo  Thome  by  the  combined  Dutch  and  Brit- 
ish forces  in  1629,  and  the  alleged  attempts  of  the  Dutch  to  fortify 
themselves  in   the  creeks  of  the  Orinoco,  show   that  the  Dutch 


270  THE  DUTCH  TITLE. 

projet  in  Guiana  was  not  a  peaceful  occupation  of  unappropriated 
lands,  but  an  attempt  to  dispossess  an  enemy. 

If  the  Dutch  forces,  after  the  destruction  of  Santo  Thome,  in 
July,  tarried  for  a  short  time  near  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco,  it 
was  manifestly  to  prepare  for  the  attack  on  Trinidad,  which  fol- 
lowed in  October.  It  was  a  temporary  military  occupation,  and 
no  right  can  be  predicated  upon  it  after  it  was  let  go.  Yet  Great 
Britain  attempts  to  use  it  to  support  a  title  by  occupatio. 

In  "  Documents  relative  to  the  Colonial  History  of  New 
York,"  edited  by  Brodhead  (vol.  i,  p.  39),  we  have  a  report  made 
by  "the  nineteen"  to  the  States  General,  in  1629,  in  which  it  is 
declared  that,  as  they  had  before  represented,  to  make  a  truce 
with  the  enemy  (Spain)  would  probably  ruin  the  Company.  In 
the  course  of  an  account  of  what  had  been  done  in  the  region  of 
Guiana,  it  is  said: 

"  From  the  commencement  of  our  administration  we  preferred  to  pro- 
ceed in  a  warlike  manner  against  the  common  enemy,"  "  because  we  found 
that  the  expected  service  for  the  welfare  of  our  Fatherland  and  the  destruc- 
tion of  our  hereditary  enemy  could  not  be  accomplished  by  the  trifling 
trade  with  the  Indians  or  the  tardy  cultivation  of  uninhabited  regions,  but 
in  reality  by  acts  of  hostility  against  the  ships  and  property  of  the  King  of 
Spain  and  his  subjects,  surprising  his  possessions  and  preserving  them  for 
the  public  service,  which  plan  has  been  so  graciously  blessed  by  God  dur- 
ing these  latter  years  that  great  wealth  has  thereby  been  brought  to  this 
State,  and  the  enemy's  finances  thrown  into  such  arrears  and  confusion 
that  no  improvement  is  to  be  expected  therein  except  from  cessation  of  our 
arms  and  retaining  our  fleets  at  home,  out  of  those  countries."  "  We, 
therefore,  confidently,  and  of  our  own  certain  knowledge,  do  assert  that 
the  entering  into  a  truce  must  be  the  ruin  of  this  Company." 

Among  the  sources  of  wealth,  they  mention  that  "  the  silver  coined 
and  in  bars  received  at  the  beginning  of  this  year,  in  consequence  of  the 
capture  of  the  fleet  from  New  Spain,  amounted  to  so  great  a  treasure  that 
never  did  any  fleet  bring  such  a  prize  to  this  or  any  other  country." 

In  the  sailing  regulations,  of  the  States  General  for  the  West 
India  Company,  May  14,  1632,  and  July  17,  1633,  given  in  the 


CONQUEST.  271 

British  Case  (App.  I,  p.  Y3),  and  in  the  Case  of  Venezuela  (vol.  ii, 
pp.  19-20),  we  have  this: 

"Firstly,  no  such  ships  {i.  e.,  from  any  part  of  the  United  Provinces, 
other  than  the  Company's)  may  sail  to  the  coast  of  Africa,  or  the  New 
Netherlands,  or  elsewhere  where  the  Company  may  trade,  on  any  ]>retence : 
hut  they  may  sail  to  the  coast  of  Brazil ;  likewise  into  the  West  Indies,  to 
wit,  [from]  the  River  Orinoco  westwards  along  the  coast  of  Cartagena, 
Portobello,  Honduras,  Oampeche,  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  and  the  coast  of 
Florida,  together  with  all  the  islands  situated  within  these  limits,  in  order 
there  to  carry  on  all  manner  of  warfare  by  sea  and  by  land  against  the  King 
of  Spain,  his  subjects  and  allies." 

The  next  article  made  provision  for  payment  to  the  Company 
of  certain  proportions  of  the  proceeds  from  the  sales  of  prizes 
taken  from  the  enemy.  The  Company  would  conduct  the  "  War- 
fare by  sea  and  land  "  to  the  east  of  Orinoco  for  its  sole  profit,  but 
would  open  the  region  to  the  west  to  all  privateers,  for  a  share  in 
the  war  booty. 

The  letter  of  Jacques  Ousiel  to  the  West  India  Company,  in 
163T  (B.  C.  App.  I,  p.  82)  gives  an  account  of  a  projected  Spanish 
and  Indian  expedition  to  besiege  the  Dutch  fort  at  Essequibo. 

But  the  Dutch  military  operations  against  Spain  in  South 
America,  and  the  seizure  of  her  territory,  were  not  limited  to  the 
Guiana  coasts.  They  were  especially  aggressive  in  Brazil,  and 
were  there  also  directed  against  places  actually  occupied  by  the 
Portuguese— then  under  the  Spanish  crown. 

In  1623  the  Dutch  attacked  San  Salvador  or  Bahia  and  took 
it;  and  two  years  later  yielded  it  again  to  Spain  after  a  fight  in 
which  the  Dutch  fleet  was  destroyed.  The  war  there  against 
Spain  continued  until  after  the  Portuguese  revolt  from  Spain,  and 
afterwards  against  the  Portuguese. 

When  the  treaty  of  Munster  was  made  the  Dutch  still  held 
some  of  the  captured  places  in  Brazil,  and  had  lost  some  of  them. 
To  these  conquered  places,  held  and  lost,  the  Dutch  took  Spain's 
cession— just  as  to  the  places  in  Guiana  still  held  by  them. 


272  THE  DUTCH  TITLE. 

All  this  may  seem  to  be  work  of  supererogation,  but  at  least  it 
completes  the  demonstration  of  the  fact  that  the  Dutch  attempts 
to  appropriate  Guiana  were  not  acts  of  peaceful  occupation,  but 
were  acts  of  war,  directed  against  and  intended  to  weaken  an 
enemy;  that  the  lands  appropriated  were  the  prizes  of  war  quite 
as  certainly  as  the  ships  taken  at  sea. 

But  we  are  not  left  to  argument  to  establish  our  proposition 
that  the  Dutch  settlements  in  Guiana  were  conquests,  and  that 
the  Treaty  of  Munster  was  a  grant  or  cession  by  Spain  confirming 
the  Dutch  title  to  these  conquests. 

We  have  a  definite  and  nearly  contemporaneous  admission  of 
these  facts  by  the  Dutch.  In  the  sailing  permits  of  the  West 
India  Company -of  which  one  of  the  year  1653  is  given  in  the 
British  Counter-Case  (App.,  p.  25)— the  Dutch  possessions  in 
Essequibo  are  explicitly  declared  to  be  "  conquests."  The  language 
is  "  except  in  our  conquests  of  Africa,  the  Wild  Coast,  Essequibo, 
Berbice,"  &c. 

In  November,  1660,  only  twelve  years  after  the  treaty  of 
Munster,  in  a  "  Deductie  as  to  New  Netherland,  submitted  by  the 
West  India  Company,  to  the  States  General  "  we  find  this: 

'*  King  Charles  I  (of  England),  of  illustrious  memory,  being  likewise  of 
too  just  and  too  generous  a  nature  to  give  away  and  present  to  his  subjects 
lands  and  places  already  possessed  and  governed  by  other  free  nations,  his 
allies,  and  over  which,  consequently,  no  disposition  in  the  world  apper- 
tained to  him. 

Unless  such  should  be  claimed  on  the  ground  that  the  English  nation 
have  settled  \hun  neergeslagen]  about  that  region  of  America  (namely,  in 
Virginia),  prior  to  and  before  the  Netherlanders. 

If  that  be  given  weight,  then  we  think  the  Dutch  nation  must  instead 
be  preferred,  being  considered  the  same  as  in  earlier  times,  namely,  vassaU 
and  subjects  of  the  King  of  Spain,  first  discoverer  and  founder  of  this  neii 
American  world,  who  since,  at  the  conclusion  of  the  peace,  has  made  over  to 
the  United  Netherland  Provinces  all  his  right  and  title  to  such  countriei 
and  domains  as  by  them  in  course  of  time  had  been  conquered  in  Europe^ 
America,  etc.  {als  by  haer  ingevolge  van  tyt  in  Buropa,  America,  etc.,  loaren 
gecconquestcerty    (V.  C,  vol.  iii,  p.  367.) 


I 


CONQUEST.  273 

Spain's  title  by  discovery  is  here  distinctly  admitted,  and  quite 
as  distinctly  the  fact  that,  "at  the  conclusion  of  the  peace,"  by 
the  Treaty  of  Munster,  Spain  made  over  to  the  United  Netherland 
Provinces  all  her  "right  and  title  to  such  countries  and  domains 
as  by  them  in  the  course  of  time  had  been  conquered  in  Europe, 
America,  etc." 

The  Treaty  of  Munster  was  a  grant  by  Spain  to  the  Dutch,  and 
the  grant  was  of  territory  taken  in  war. 

But  we  have  further  evidence,  from  British  sources,  that  the 
Dutch  territorial  claims  in  Guiana,  now  represented  by  Great 
Britain,  were  based  upon  conquest  from  Spain,  confirmed  by  the 
cession  contained  in  the  Treaty  of  Munster. 

In  his  letter  to  Senor  Rojas,  of  January  10,  1880  (B.  C.  App. 
VII,  p.  9(i),  Lord  Salisbury,  speaking  of  the  boundary  dispute,  says: 

"  With  regard  to  the  first  of  these  questions,  I  have  the  honour  to  state 
that  Her  Majesty's  Government  are  of  opinion  that  to  argue  the  matter  on 
the  ground  of  strict  right  would  involve  so  many  intricate  questions  con- 
nected with  the  original  discovery  and  settlement  of  the  country,  and  sub- 
sequent conquests,  cessions,  and  Treaties,  that  it  would  be  very  inlikely  to 
lead  to  a  satisftictory  solution  of  the  question.  .  .  .  The  boundary 
wliicli  Her  Majesty's  Government  claim,  in  virtue  of  ancient  Treaties  with 
the  aboriginal  tribes  and  of  subsequent  cessions  from  Holhmd,  commences, 
etc." 

Now,  here  we  have  a  distinct  statement  that  the  British  title 
rests  in  part,  at  least,  upon  conquest  and  cession,  and  those  terms 
could  only  be  appropriately  used  of  Dutch  conquests  fiom  Spain 
and  of  Spain's  cession  to  the  Dutch;  for  Great  Britain  does  not 
allege  a  conquest  from  Spain  or  any  direct  cession  from  her.  As 
to  the  reference  to  "treaties  with  the  aboriginal  tribes,"  it  is 
enough  to  say  that  the  reference  is  to  treaties  that  preceded  the 
British  acquisitions  and  that  no  such  treaties  have  been  exhibited 
—even  if  sovereignty  could  have  been  acquired  by  that  means. 
All  of  these  references  to  sources  of  title  must  relate  to  a  Dutch 
title;  for  Great  Britain  does  not  claim  to  have  acquired  any  direct 
title  as  against  Spain,  either  by  conquest  or  cession.     If  she  has 


I 


274  THE  DUTCH  TITLE. 

any  title  referable  to  such  sources  it  is  derived  from  the  Dutch. 
In  his  letter  of  November  20,  1895,  to  Sir  Julian  Pauncefote  (V. 
C.-C,  vol.  iii,  p.  27b)  Lord  Salisbury  says  (p.  276)  the  British  claim 
is  "in  accordance  with  the  limits  claimed  and  actually  held  by 
the  Dutch,  and  this  has  always  since  remained  the  frontier  claimed 
by  Great  Britain." 

It  is  elsewhere  affirmed  by  Lord  Salisbury  that  Schomburgk 
did  not  "discover  or  invent  any  new  boundaries,"  but  only  laid 
down  the  line  of  Dutch  appropriation. 

And  again,  on  May  26,  1893,  Venezuela,  through  Tomas  Mich- 
elena,  submitted  bases  for  the  conclusion  of  a  Preliminary  Con- 
vention between  Great  Britain  and  Venezula  for  re-establishing 
diplomatic  relations  and  the  settlement  of  the  questions  pending. 
Article  1  contains  this  recital: 

"The  Government  of  Great  Britain  claims  certain  territory  in  Guiana 
as  successor  in  title  of  the  Netherlands,  and  the  Government  of  Venezuela 
claims  the  same  territory  as  being  the  heir  of  Spain  "  (V.  C,  vol.  iii.,  pp. 
^86-287). 

In  his  reply,  July  3,  1893,  Lord  Rosebery  amends  this  state- 
ment to  read  as  follows: 

"  (Whereas)  The  Government  of  Great  Britain  claims  certain  territory 
in  Guayana  as  successor  in  title  of  the  Netherlands  and  [by  right  of  conquest 
as  against  Spain,  and  whereas]  the  Government  of  Venezuela, etc.,  (V.  C. 
vol.  iii,  p.  289). 

The  British  Premier  inserts  the  words,  "and  by  right  of  con- 
quest as  against  Spain."  Now,  it  is  not  claimed  that  Great 
Britain  ever  took  any  part  of  Guiana  from  Spain  by  conquest. 
We  have  no  hint  of  such  a  claim  in  the  whole  British  Case.  The 
title  by  conquest  here  asserted  must  then  have  been  based  upon  a 
conquest  by  the  Dutch,  and  this  conquest  must  have  antedated 
the  Treaty  of  Munster;  for  there  neither  is,  nor  can  be,  any  claim 
made  of  a  later  conquest  "  as  against  Spain." 

We  have  then  the  distinct  admissions  of  the  Dutch  and  of  Great 
Britain  that  the  territorial  titles,  which  were  confirmed  to  the 
Dutch  by  the  Treaty  of  Munster,  were  acquisitions  by  conquest. 


I 


CONQUEST.  275 

Let  us  now  inquire  what  the  law  is  as  to  the  limits  of  a  title  by 
conquest. 

The  sources  of  territorial  title  are  thus  stated  by  Phillimore: 

"  From  Grotius  we  learn  that  these  modes  of  acquisition  were: 

1.  By  occupation  {occiipatione  derelicii). 

2.  By  treaty  and  convention  {padionibus). 

3.  By  conquest  {viclorice  jure).  And  if  acquisition  by  accession  and 
by  prescription  be  considered  as  corollaries  to  occupation,  and  all  cases  of 
transfer  be  held  to  fall  under  the  category  of  treaty  and  convention,  the 
enumeration  may  be  considered  as  sufficient  and  complete  "  (Phillimore,  3d 
Ed.,  i.,  328). 

Mr,  Wheaton  (Int.  Law,  3d  Ed.,  Sections  545-6)  says: 

"  The  treaty  of  peace  leaves  everything  in  the  state  in  which  it  found  it, 
unless  there  be  some  express  stipulation  to  the  contrary.  The  existing 
state  of  possession  is  maintained,  except  so  far  as  altered  by  the  terms  of 
the  treaty.  If  nothing  be  said  about  the  conquered  country  or  places,  they 
remain  with  the  conqueror,  and  his  title  cannot  afterwards  be  called  in 
question.  During  the  continuance  of  the  war,  the  conqueror  in  possession 
has  only  a  usufructuary  right,  and  the  latent  title  of  the  former  sovereign 
continues,  until  the  treaty  of  peace,  by  its  silent  operation,  or  express  provi- 
sions, extinguishes  his  title  forever. 

The  restoration  of  the  conquered  territory  to  its  original  sovereign,  by 
the  treaty  of  peace,  carries  with  it  the  restoration  of  all  persons  and  things 
which  have  been  temporarily  under  the  enemy's  dominion,  to  their  original 
state.  This  general  rule  is  applied,  without  exception,  to  real  property  or 
immovables.  The  title  acquired  in  war  to  this  species  of  property,  until 
confirmed  by  a  treaty  of  peace,  confers  a  mere  temporary  right  of  posses- 
sion. The  proprietary  right  cannot  be  transferred  by  the  conqueror  to  a 
third  party,  so  as  to  entitle  him  to  claim  against  the  former  owner,  on  the 
restoration  of  the  territory  to  the  original  sovereign.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  conquered  territory  is  ceded  by  the  treaty  of  peace  to  the  conqueror, 
such  an  intermediate  transfer  is  thereby  confirmed,  and  the  title  of  the  pur- 
chaser becomes  valid  and  complete." 

In  a  note  (34:6c),    Mr.    Boyd,    the  editor    of    the    edition  of 

Wheaton  to  which  we  refer,  says: 

"  Firm  military  occupation  transfers  all  the  rights  of  the  displaced  sov- 
ereignty to  the  victor,  and  he  may  therefore  use  the  public  property  of  th6 
former  as  he  thinks  fit,  and  may  appropriate  to  himself  the  rates  and  taxes 


I 


276  THE   DUTCH  TITLE. 

due  to  it.  But  this  is  the  case  only  so  long  as  the  occupation  lasts;  as  soon 
as  the  district  is  lost,  tlie  rights  of  military  occupation  over  it  are  also  lost. 
It  the  district  is  retaken  bj  its  original  sovereign,  it  reverts  to  the  same 
state  it  was  in  before  it  was  lost." 

Grotius  (Peace  and  War,  iii,  par.  4,  219),  says: 

"  Lands  are  not  understood  to  become  a  lawful  possession  and  absolute 
conquest  from  the  moment  they  are  invaded.  For  although  it  is  true,  that 
an  army  takes  immediate  and  violent  possession  of  the  country  which  it  has 
invaded,  yet  that  can  only  be  considered  as  a  temporary  possession,  unac- 
companied with  any  of  the  rights  and  consequences  alluded  to  in  this  work, 
till  it  has  been  ratified  and  secured  by  some  durable  means,  by  cession  or 
treaty.  For  this  reason,  the  land  without  the  gates  of  Rome,  where  Hanni- 
bal encamped,  was  so  far  from  being  judged  entirely  lost,  that  it  was  sold 
for  the  same  price  that  it  would  have  been  sold  for  before  that  period.  Now 
land  will  be  considered  as  completely  conquered,  when  it  is  enclosed  or  se- 
cured by  permanent  fortifications,  so  that  no  other  state  or  sovereign  can 
have  free  access  to  it,  Avithout  first  making  themselves  masters  of  those 
fortifications." 

This  author  {Id.,  par.  5,  221),  further  says: 

"  The  right  of  making  things  change  their  owners  by  force  is  of  too 
odious  a  nature  to  admit  of  any  extension." 

And  {Id.,  p.  353),  speaking  of  treaties  of  peace  that  leave  things 
in  the  "  state  to  which  the  war  has  reduced  them,"  he  further 

says: 

"And  lands  are  said  to  be  so  possessed,  when  inclosed  or  defended  by 
fortifications,  for  a  temporary  occupation  by  an  encampment  is  not  regarded 
in  this  case.  Hence  Demosthenes  in  his  speech  for  Ctesiphon,  says  that 
Philip  was  anxious  to  make  himself  master  of  all  the  places  he  could  seize, 
as  he  knew  that  upon  the  conclusion  of  a  peace,  he  should  retain  them." 

The  military  occupation  must  have  the  character  of  a  firm 
holding  and  of  a  permanent,  not  a  transitory,  occupation. 
Field  (Int.  Code,  p.  482),  proposes  this  rule: 

"Military  or  belligerent  occupation,  as  used  in  this  book,  is  a  possession 
by  the  military  power  of  a  belligerent  sufficiently  firm  to  enable  such  heUig- 
eretit  to  execute  its  will  within  the  limits  of  the  occupation,  either  by  force    l 


CONQUEST.  277 

or  by  acquiescence  of  the  people  for  an  indefinite  future,  subject  only  to 
the  chances  of  war." 

He  further  proposes  that: 

"  The  allegiance  of  the  members  of  a  belligerent  nation  resident  within 
the  limits  of  the  military  occupation  of  the  enemy  is  suspended." 

This  suggestion  furnishes  a  good  test  of  the  limits  of  a  mili- 
tary occupation.  The  subjects  of  the  power  from  whose  control 
the  territory  has  been  taken  may,  during  and  within  the  occupa- 
tion, recognize  the  military  control  of  the  enemy,  and  may  submit 
themselves  to  and  even  take  part  in  the  local  administration, 
without  treason  to  their  sovereign. 

Could  a  Spaniard  in  the  Pomeroon,  or  in  the  Barima  region,  or 
above  the  first  falls  of  Cuyuni,  have  taken  office  under  the  Dutch, 
without  treason  to  his  King,  in  1048? 

Phillimore  (vol.  iii.,  p.  814),  says  of  title  by  conquest: 

"  Conquest  and  occupation  are  distinct  things,  governed  as  to  their 
legal  effects  in  various  respects  by  different  principles  and  attended  with 
different  consequences.  Nevertheless  there  is  an  analogy  between  the  two, 
and,  in  some  respects,  rules  of  occupation  are  applicable  to  the  case  of  con- 
quest. Conquest  is  often  defined  as  occujmtio  helUca  ;  and  it  so  far  par- 
takes of  the  nature  of  occupation  that  unless  the  conqueror  has  actual  pos- 
session of  the  things  conquered  he  can  exercise  no  right  over  it.  .  .  . 
It  has  been  already  seen  that,  in  the  case  of  immovable  property,  even 
actual  possession  by  the  conqueror  does  not  confer  a  right  of  alienation, 
which,  after  the  conqueror  has  departed,  will  inure  to  oust  the  original 
owner,  unless  such  a  result  has  formed  part  of  the  stipulations  of  a  treaty 
or  been  ratified  by  some  public  act  of  the  state." 

Eugene  Ortolan,  in  a  treatise  entitled  "On  the  means  of 
acquiring  international  dominion  or  state  ownership  between 
nations,  according  to  the  public  law  of  nations,  compared  with 
the  means  of  acquiring  ownership  between  private  persons  accord- 
ing to  private  law,  and  followed  by  the  principles  of  political 
equilibrium,"  says: 

"  But  leaving  aside  this  usual  exception,  which  at  the  end  of  a  very 
short  time  and  before  any  Treaty  gave  recognition  to  the  right  of  property, 
to  booty  or  maritin^e  spoils,  we  ri^ust  be  certain  of  the  fact  acknowledge4 


278  THE   DUTCH   TITLE. 

by  the  laws  of  nations  ruling  to-day  in  Europe,  that  war  is  a  method  of 
procedure  where  there  is  no  definite  sentence  valid  as  in  law  in  reference  to 
property,  except  by  virtue  of  a  Treaty  ending  the  war,  and  from  the 
moment  that  this  has  been  agreed  to.'' 

Military  occupation,  he  further  says, 
"  constitutes  a  valid  possession  ;  the  victor  may  perform  in  the  territory  by 
him  occupied  the  acts  of  a  lona  fide  possessor;  rnay  collect  taxes,  exercise 
authority,  jurisdiction.  The  foreign  nations,  if  they  wish  to  remain  neu- 
tral, are  under  obligation  to  recognize  such  possessions,  and  the  belligerent 
nation  itself,  upon  recovery  of  the  territory,  could  not  derogate  s"uch  acts 
that  imply  not  only  definitive  property  but  also  a  passing  possession." 

"  The  victor,  however,  can  not  validly  pcrfu7-m  any  of  the  acts  which  in- 
dicate a  right  to  international  domain  ;  can  not  sell  the  property,  mortyaye 
the  country,  alienate  the  territory  to  aforciyn  nation,  dispose  of  it  in  any 
manner  whatever.  The  'poiier  of  the  victor  is  transient  as  the  probabilities 
of  the  success  to  which  it  is  due,  and  this  poiver  expires  at  the  same  time  0/ 
the  possession  and  nothing  of  it  remains  thereafter." 

In  the  case  of  American  Insurance  Company  v.  Canter  (i. 
Peters,  U.  S.  Sup.  Crt.,  511)  Marshall,  C.  J.,  says: 

''The  usage  of  the  world  is,  if  a  nation  be  not  entirely  subdued,  to 
consider  the  holding  of  the  conquered  territory  as  a  mere  military  occupa- 
tion, until  its  fate  shall  be  determined  at  the  treaty  of  peace.  If  it  be 
ceded  by  the  treaty,  the  acquisition  is  confirmed  and  the  ceded  territory 
becomes  a  part  of  the  nation  to  which  it  is  annexed;  either  on  the  terms 
stipulated  in  the  treaty  of  cession  or  on  such  terms  as  its  new  master 
shall  impose." 

In  the  case  of  U.  S.  v.  Hay  ward  (2  Gallison,  U.  S.  Cir.  Crt., 
485),  a  case  growinj^  out  of  the  military  occupation  of  the  Town 
of  Castine,  in  the  State  of  Maine,  by  the  British  forces  during 
the  war  of  1812,  Story,  Justice,  says: 

"  By  the  conquest  and  occupation  of  Castine  that  territory  passed 
under  the  allegiance  and  sovereignty  of  the  enemy.  The  sovereignty  of 
the  United  States  over  the  territory  was  of  course  suspended  and  the 
laws  of  the  United  States  could  no  longer  be  rightfully  enforced,  or  be 
obligatory  upon  the  inhabitants  who  remained  and  submitted  to  the 
conquerors.  Castine  therefore  could  not  strictly  speaking  be  deemed  a 
post  of  the  United  States,  for  its  sovereignty  no  longer  extended  over  the 
place.    Nor  on  the  other  hand,  could  it  strictly  speaking  be  deemed  a  post 


CONQUEST.  279 

within  tlie  dominions  of  Great  Britian,  for  it  has  not  permanently  passed 
under  her  sovereignty.  The  right  which  existed  was  the  mere  right  of 
superior  force;  the  allegiance  was  temporary  and  the  possession  not  that 
firm  possession  which  gives  to  tlie  conqueror  ^jlenum  domininm  et  utile-- 
the  complete  and  perfect  ownership  of  property.  It  could  only  be  by  a 
renunciation,  in  a  treaty  of  peace,  or  by  possession  so  long  and  permanent 
as  should  afford  conclusive  proof  that  the  territory  was  altogether 
abandoned  by  its  sovereign,  or  had  been  irretrievably  subdued,  that  it 
could  be  considered  as  incorporated  into  the  dominions  of  the  British 
sovereign." 

Castine  was  at  the  mouth  of  the  Penobscot  River,  and  the 
Governor  of  Nova  Scotia,  by  proclamation,  claimed  for  Great 
Britain,  by  conquest,  all  of  the  territory  east  of  that  river;  but  the 
claim  was  absurd.  If  General  Pakenham  had  captured  New 
Orleans,  Great  Britain  would  hardly  have  put  forward  a  title  by 
conquest  to  the  whole  Mississippi  Valley,  even  if  her  view  of  the 
watershed  doctrine  had  been  then  what  it  is  now. 

The  case  of  United  States  v.  Rice  (4  Wheaton,  246),  also  grew 
out  of  the  military  occupation  of  Castine  by  the  British;  the 
question  being  whether  an  importation  of  goods  made  into  the 
port,  while  the  British  had  control,  could,  after  the  treaty  of 
peace  and  the  restoration  of  the  port  to  the  United  States,  be  made 
subject  to  duties.     The  Court  (Story,  J.)  said: 

"  Under  these  circumstances,  we  are  of  opinion  that  the  claim  for  duties 
cannot  be  sustained.  By  the  conquest  and  military  occupation  of  Castine, 
the  enemy  acquired  that  firm  possession  which  enabled  him  to  exercise  the 
fullest  rights  of  sovereignty  over  that  place.  The  sovereignty  of  the  United 
States  over  the  territory  was,  of  course,  suspended,  and  the  laws  of  the 
United  States  could  no  longer  be  rightfully  enforced  there,  or  be  obligatory 
upon  the  inhabitants  who  remained  and  submitted  to  the  conquerors.  By 
the  surrender  the  inhabitants  passed  under  a  temjjorary  allegiance  to  the 
British  Government,  and  were  bound  by  such  laws,  and  such  only,  as  it 
chose  to  recognize  and  impose." 

Chief  Justice  Taney  said,  in  Fleming  v.  Page  (9  How.,  615): 

"  For  by  the  laws  and  usages  of  nations,  conquest  is  a  valid  title  while 
the  victor  n^aintains  the  exclusive  possession  of  the  conquered  territory." 


280  THE   DUTCH   TITLE. 

The  convenience  of  an  intrudei'  is  not  to  be  consulted,  A  con- 
quest is  an  actual  taking  and  nothing  goes  with  it.  One  who,  by 
conquest,  takes  a  river  mouth  or  a  line  of  sea  coast,  cannot  invoke 
the  rule  as  to  the  watershed,  or  as  to  the  middle  distance,  or  the 
rule  of  safety,  against  the  dispossessed  nation.  So  a  treaty  of  peace 
confirming  to  the  conqueror  what  he  has  taken— the  places  then 
held  by  him— is  not  to  be  taken  to  give  those  natural  and  conven- 
ient boundaries  that  a  discoverer,  or  a  first  occupier,  might  have 
claimed.  It  gives  only  those  limits  that  the  conquered  nation 
must  fight  to  repossess  itself  of— a^  the  time  of  the  treaty.  It  is 
not  significant  that  the  conqueror  may  have  sent  expeditions  into 
further  regions  or  have  liad  very  temporary  posts  there.  It  is 
only  that  which  he  has  securely  possessed  himself  of  that  he  has 
title  to.  Now  it  is  quite  certain  that  the  region  from  which  the 
Dutch  had,  by  armed  occupation,  excluded  Spain,  comprised  only 
the  very  lowest  parts  of  the  Essequibo  River,  within  the  disputed 
territory.  They  had  attacked  Santo  Thome,  but  withdrew,  and 
there  was  no  part  of  Guiana,  save  the  lower  Essequibo,  where  the 
Spanish  could  not  and  did  not  go  as  they  pleased.  It  was  not  the 
stress  of  war  in  Guiana,  nor  Dutch  victories  or  power  there,  but 
at  home,  that  brought  the  peace  and  the  cession. 

We  conclude  this  discussion  with  these  propositions: 

FiusT. — The  Dutch  occupation  of  Guiana  was  effected  as  an  act 
of  war  against  Spain  upon  territory  known  to  be  claimed  by  Spain, 
and  with  a  view  to  the  appropriation  of  the  Spanish  title  and  the 
use  of  tiie  places  seized  as  depots  and  arsenals  in  further  contem- 
plated attacks  upon  Spain's  ships  and  settlements. 

Second. — That  as  matter  of  law,  the  Dutch  could  by  these 
hostile  acts  acquire  no  more  territory  than  was  actually  and  firmly 
held  by  them.  That  the  bounds  of  their  military  occupation  cannot 
be  extended  by  the  use  of  any  of  the  equitable  intendments  allowed 
in  behalf  of  nations  that  discover  and  peaceably  occupy  unappro- 
priated lands. 

Third.— That  the  Treaty  of  Munster  is  to  be  read  as  confirm- 
ing the  Dutch  title  only  to  such  territory  as  was  thus  strictly  held. 


.CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  DUTCH  TITLE -TREATY  OF   MUNSTER   A  CESSION. 

If  the  Dutch  holdings  in  Guiana,  in  164-8— and  especially 
Essequibo — were  the  fruits  of  conquest  from  Spain,  a  purely 
peace  treaty  would,  ex  re  termini,  have  the  effect  of  confirming 
the  Dutch  title  to  such  places  as  they  then  firmly  held.  The 
treaty  might,  by  express  stipulation,  have  confirmed  this  legal 
consequence  of  the  agreement  to  terminate  the  state  of  war,  or 
it  might,  by  cession,  have  enlarged  the  holdings  of  the  Dutch, 
or  have  reduced  those  holdings  or  required  a  complete  surrender 
of  them  to  Spain.  What  the  treaty  did  was,  as  the  British  Case 
admits,  to  "confirm  "the  Dutch  in  their  "possessions,"  to  give 
them  that  "perfected"  title  of  which  the  law  writers  speak. 
To  be  sure,  Great  Britain  contends  that  there  is  in  the  treaty  a 
provision  for  a  contingent  enlargement  of  the  Dutch  possessions; 
but  this,  as  we  shall  show,  had  no  operation  westward  of  Esse- 
quibo. We  think  that  the  treaty  is  to  be  read  as  a  cession  of 
territory  acquired  by  conquest,  and  limited  by  the  rules  applica- 
ble to  conquests.  That  reading  is  confirmed,  as  we  have  seen, 
by  the  unequivocal  admissions  of  the  Dutch  and  of  Great  Britain. 
But  if  the  Dutch  did  not  hold  by  conquest,  but  by  a  disputed 
occ<tpa^/o— disputed  by  arms — this  comprehensive  treaty  of  peace 
must  be  so  read  as  to  settle  that  dispute;  to  leave  it  open  would 
be  to  make  no  peace.  And  after  all.  Great  Britain's  contention 
of  a  Dutch  right  to  enlarge  the  possessions  of  1648  is  rested 
upon  the  treaty,  which  is  said  to  contain  a  provision  authorizing 
it.  Unless  then  that  provision  does  have  that  effect  as  to  the 
territory  in  dispute,  the  Dutch  were  limited  by  the  treaty  to  so 
much  of  the  disputed  territory  as  they  had  actually  occupied. 
There  was  no  possible  basis  for  a  larger  Dutch  claim. 


282  DUTCH  TITLE. 

We  maintain  that  by  the  Treaty  of  Munster,  Spain  ceded  and 
the  Dutch  accepted  as  a  grant  from  Spain,  those  parts  of  Guiana 
then  occupied  by  the  Dutch;  that  the  treaty  plainly  implied  that 
the  bounds  of  the  territory  ceded  and  of  the  territory  retained  by 
Spain  were  co  terminous,  and  that  by  the  treaty  the  Dutch 
expressly  engaged  not  to  attempt  any  enlargement  of  the  ceded 
territory,  except  as  they  were  specifically  allowed  so  to  do  by  the 
treaty;  that  these  exceptions  related  wholly  to  lands  and  not  to 
any  part  of  the  disputed  territory;  and  that  any  occupation  of 
territory  west  of  the  proper  bounds  of  the  Dutch  possessions 
occupied  by  Portugal,  in  Essequibo— as  they  were  in  1648 — was 
in  violation  of  the  treaty  and  an  encroachment  upon  Spanish 
territory. 

In  the  memorandum  of  the  British  Foreign  Office,  July  LH, 
1890,  we  have  a  most  formal  and  definite  admission  that  tho 
Treaty  of  Munster  was  a  grant.     We  quote  : 

"That  territory,  and  by  far  the  greater  portion  of  the  large  tract  of 
country  which  the  Venezuelan  Government  seeks  to  put  in  question, 
accrued  to  the  Netherlands  under  the  Treaty  of  Munster  of  1648  by  right 
of  previous  occupation."     (V.  C,  vol.  iii,  p.  283.) 

The  British  positions,  as  disclosed  by  the  British  Case  and  by 
the  Counter-Case,  are  these: 

By  the  Treaty  of  Munster  the  Dutch  were  "  confirmed  in  the 
possession  of  all  the  lordships,  fortresses,  commerce,  and  country 
which  they  then  held,  as  well  as  the  places  which  they  should 
thereafter  acquire  without  infraction  of  the  Treaty  "  (B.  C,  p.  13).  ^ 

In  the  British  Counter-Case  (p.  35)  it  is  said  that  the  Treaty  of 
Munster  "  cannot  possibly  be  regarded  as  a  'grant '  by  Spain  to 
the  Dutch  of  their  Settlements,  and  that  there  was  nothing  in, 
that  Treaty  to  limit  the  expansion  of  the  Dutch  Settlements,  pro- 1 
vided  they  did  not  encroach  upon  territory  actually  held  and  pos- 
sessed by  Spain." 


TREATY    OF    MUNSTER.  283 

And,  again,  of  the  clause  of  Article  V.  of  the  treaty — 

"including  also  the  localities  and  jilaces  which  the  same  Lords  States 
shall  hereafter  without  infraction  of  the  present  Treaty  come  to  conquer 
and  possess  ;" 

this  is  said  (B.  C-C,  pp.  41-42): 

"  Now,  bearing  in  mind  that  the  only  three  European  Towers  in 
Guiana,  the  country  immediately  in  question,  were  Spain,  the  Dutch,  and 
Portugal,  it  is  obvious  that  these  words  were  intended  to  refer  to  the  un- 
oonquered   and   unoccuj)ied   territories   then   in  possession  of  native 

tribes." 

It  is  not  easy  to  reconcile  these  propositions.  The  Counter- 
Case  seems  to  counter  on  the  Case.  It  is  said  in  the  Case,  that 
the  treaty  "  confirmed"  the  Dutch  title;  that  is,  made  it  a  firm 
title;  which  certainly  implies  a  betterment  of  it,  and  that  derived 
from  Spain.  Yet  the  Counter-Case  says  it  was  not  a  *' grant." 
If  no  Spanish  claim  or  title  was  released  or  passed  by  the  treaty, 
hou'  could  it  operate  to  make  the  Dutch  title  better?  And,  if  such 
a  claim  or  title  was  given  or  released  to  the  Dutch  it  was  a 
"  grant."  After,  and  by  the  treaty,  the  Dutch  were  in  a  position 
Ip  set  up,  as  grantees,  a  Spanish  title;  and  this  they  did,  in  the 
iispute  with  Great  Britain  over  the  New  Netherlands,  as  we  have 
idbj  peen.  The  language  then  used  was  the  "  King  of  Spain  .  .  . 
as  made  over  to  the  United  Netherlands  all  his  right  and  title  to 

nthflsuch  countries,  &c."    The  Dutch  accepted  the  Treaty  of  Munster 

■i 
ontrws  a  Spanish  ''grant." 

IkmiH     The  British  Case  (p.  13)  admits  that,  after  the  conclusion  of  the 

p.lJlBTreaty  of  Munster,    "great  extensions  of  their   possessions   in 

4ty«B?uiana  were  made  by  the  Dutch  " — meaning,  of  course,  within  the 

isputed  territory. 
It  contains  this  further  statement  in  explanation  of  the  Dutch 

ttempts  to  extend  on  the  west: 

jtipos^     "  In  1656  the  Dutch  were  driven  from  Brazil  by  the  Portuguese,  and 
|iis  seems  to   have  had   the  effect  of  concentrating  their  efforts  upon 
uiana"  (B.  C,  p.  27). 


2S4:  DUTCH  TITLE. 

That  is,  the  extensions  contemplated  and  allowed  by  the 
treaty,  in  the  east,  having  been  balked  by  reason  of  the  superior 
power  of  the  Portuguese,  the  Dutch  turned  to  the  prohibited  ivest 
for  enlargement. 

A  discussion  of  these  propositions  brings  us  to  a  particular  con- 
sideration of  the  Treaty  of  Munster,  and  our  first  remark  is  that  it 
was  a  treaty  of  peace.  It  terminated  a  long  war.  During  the 
progress  of  the  war,  and  as  acts  of  war,  the  Dutch — revolting 
provinces  of  Spain— had  seized  Spanish  towns,  fortresses,  and 
provinces;  had  battled  with  Spanish  fleets,  seized  Spanish  mer- 
chant and  treasure  ships,  and  had  attacked  Spanish  posts  and 
settlements,  not  only  in  Europe  but  in  the  East  and  West  India 
Islands,  and  on  the  coast  of  America.  The  close  of  the  war  found 
the  Dutch  in  firm  possession  of  some  of  these  places. 

Under  the  next  preceding  head  we  have  discussed  the  rules  of 
international  law  applicable  to  the  situation.  As  we  have  seen, 
the  title  acquired  in  war  by  the  Dutch,  until  confirmed  by  a  treatyl! 
of  peace,  was  a  mere  temporary  right  of  possession,  a  title  that 
could  not  be  transferred  by  the  victor  to  a  third  party.  A  cession, 
by  which  the  claim  of  the  original  sovereign  was  transferred,  was 
essential  to  ''confirm  "the  Dutch  title,  to  give  tiiem  a  dominion 
that  they  could  transfer  to  another. 

Wheaton  (Int.  Law,  Sec.  545)  says: 

"The  treaty  of  peace  leaves  everything  in  the  state  iu  which  it  found  if, 
unless  there  be  some  express  stipulation  to  the  contrary.  The  existing 
state  of  possession  is  maintained  except  so  far  as  altered  by  the  terms  of  the 
treaty." 

It  appears,  then,  that  even  if  the  treaty  of  peace  between 
Spain  and  the  Dutch  had  not  contained  a  distinct  cession,  the 
effect  would  have  been  to  confirm  the  Dutch  in  the  places  actually 
held  by  them;  the  places  from  which  they  had  excluded  the 
Spaniards,  and  which  the  latter  could  not  repossess  themselves  of 
without  a  conflict.  Regions  into  which  the  conqueror  may  have*  jl 
sent  expeditions  or  in  which  he  may  have  established  temporary  j 


TREATY    OF    MUNSTER.  285 

posts  would  not  be  included,  nor  would  any  of  those  beneficial 
implications  which  are  allowed  to  some  other  titles  be  applicable 
I  here.     The  title  is  bottomed  upon  force,  and  is  strictly  limited. 

Having  now  found  the  position  in  which  things  were  when 
i  the  plenipotentiaries  of  Spain  and  the  Netherlands  met  to  frame 
a  treaty  of  peace,  we  turn  to  the  treaty  itself,  to  see  whether  it 
does  not  proceed  along  the  lines  of  the  rules  of  law  we  have  in- 
I  dicated.  But,  before  looking  at  its  particular  terms,  let  us  con- 
j  sider  some  of  the  rules  applicable  to  the  interpretation  of 
'•  treaties. 

.  In  the  British  Counter-Case  (p.  39),  it  is  said: 
I  "  In  considering  these  Articles,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind,  us  will  be 
i  subsequently  shown,  that  the  Dutch  were  at  the  time  in  a  position  to  make 
I  their  own  terms,  and  that  the  Spaniards  were  most  anxious  to  agree  to  a 
'  Treaty  at  any  price,  and  had  in  fact  given  instructions  to  their  Plenipo- 
tentaries  to  that  effect." 

And  again  {id.y  p.  46),  it  is  said: 

"It  is  unnecessary  to  adduce  detailed  argument  to  show   that  at  the 

;  time  she  was  negotiating  the  Treaty  of  Munster,  Spain  was  practically  at 

the  mercy  of  the  Dutch,  and  that  the  Dutch,  many  of  whom  would  have 

much  preferred    that   the  war  should  continue,  could  and  did  dictate  their 

own  terms."' 

And  again  {id.,  p.  48): 

"  Further,  an  examination  of  the  negotiations  prior  to  the  Treaty, 
shows  that  the  actual  terms  of  Articles  V  and  VI  were  dictated  by  the 
Dutch." 

The  legal  rule  applicable  to  a  treaty  made  under  such  condi- 
tions is  that  it  is  to  be  construed  most  strongly  against  the  party 
who  was  in  a  position  to  dictate  its  terms. 

Vattelsays  (p.  443): 

"Incase  of  doubt  the  interpretation  goes  against  him  who  prescribes 
I  the  ternw  of  the  treaty." 

The  victor  is  always  more  or  less  firmly  master  of  the  situation, 
JAnd  therefore  this  author  (p.  265)  says: 
I       "  Everything  that  contains  a  penalty  is  odious.'' 


286  DUTCH  TITLE. 

And  again  (p.  268): 

'*  Thus  the  cession  of  a  right  or  of  a  province  made  to  a  conqueror  in 
order  to  obtain  peace  is  interpreted  in  its  most  confined  sense.  If  it  be 
true  that  the  boundaries  of  Acadia  have  always  been  uncertain  and  that 
the  French  were  the  lawful  possessors  of  it,  that  nation  will  be  justified  in 
maintaining  that  their  cession  of  Acadia  to  the  English  by  the  Treaty  of 
Utrecht  did  not  extend  beyond  the  narrowest  limits  of  that  province." 

Among  the  rules  submitted  by  Great  Britain  to  the  Arbitra- 
tor—The  Emperor  of  Germany — in  the  dispute  with  the  United 
States  as  to  the  Northwest  boundary,  were  these: 

"i.  In  interpreting  any  expressions  in  a  treaty,  regard  must  be  had  to 
the  context  and  spirit  of  the  whole  treaty." 

"4.  The  interpretation  should  be  suitable  to  the  reason  of  the 
treaty." 

"6.  Treaties  are  to  be  interpreted  in  a  favourable,  rather  than  an  odious 
sense." 

"6.  Whatever  interpretation  tends  to  change  the  existing  state  of 
things  at  the  time  the  treaty  was  made  is  to  be  ranked  in  the  class  of 
odious  things  "  (Wheaton,  Int.  Law,  Sec.  287a). 

We  stop  here  to  say,  that  to  so  construe  a  treaty  of  peace  as 
to  allow  acts  of  hostility,  or  to  leave  unadjusted  claims  that 
would  inevitably  lead  to  further  conflicts,  would  be  contrary  toi 
the  spirit  of  the  treaty  and  "odious."  It  would  be  to  put  Spain  in| 
the  position  of  confirming  to  the  Dutch  the  territory  they  had 
taken,  while  leaving  them  at  liberty—  by  an  express  stipulation 
in  a  treaty  of  peace— to  seize  as  much  more  as  they  could. 
This  would  not  be  "  suitable  to  the  reason  of  the  treaty." 

Again  Vattel  says  (p.  246): 

*'Iu  the  interpretation  of  a  treaty  or  of  any  other  deed  whatsoever  the 
question  is  to  discover  what  the  contracting  parties  have  agreed  upon." 

He  further  says  (p.  252),  that  an  interpretation  that  would 
defeat  the  main  purpose  of  the  contract  must  be  rejected;  and  so, 
one  that  leads  to  an  absurdity.  And,  again  (p.  253),  that  an  inter- 
pretation "  which  would  render  a  treaty  null  and  inefficient 
cannot  be  admitted." 


TREATY    OP    MUNSTER.  287 

Phillimore  (vol.  ii,  p.  112)  very  pertinently  says: 

"As  a  general  maxim  it  is  true  that  good  faith  clings  to  the  spirit,  and 
fraud  to  the  letter  of  the  convention." 

In  Maryatt  v.  Wilson  (i.  Bos.  &  Pal.,  439)  Eyre,  C.  J.,  said: 

*'  We  are  to  construe  this  treaty  as  we  would  construe  any  other  instru- 
ment, public  or  private.     We  are  to  collect  from  the  nature  of  the  subject, 
from  tlie  words  and  from  the  context,  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the 
contracting  parties,  whether  they  are  A  and  B,  or  happen  to  be  two  indepen- 
)  dent  states.     The  judges  who  administer  the  municipal  laws  of  one  of  those 
:  states  would  commit  themselves  upon  very  disadvantageous  ground,  ground 
i  which  they  can  have  no  opportunity  of  examining,  if  they  were  to  suffer 
}  collateral  considerations  to  mix  in  their  judgment  in  a  case  circumstanced 
as  the  present  one  is." 

In  the  case  of  United  States  v.  Arodondo  (6  Peters,  U.  S.  Sup. 
Ct.,  740),  involving  the  construction  of  the  treaty  between  Spain 
and  the    United    States,   a  treaty  that  was  expressed  both   in 
j  Spanish  and  in  English,  it  is  said: 

"  It  became,  then,  of  importance  to  ascertain  what  was  granted  by  what 
!  was  excepted.     The  King  of  Spain  was  the  grantor,  the  treaty  was  his  deed, 

the  exception  was  made  by  him,  and  its  nature  and  effect  depended  upon  his 

intention,  expressed  by  his  words,  in  reference  to  the  thing  granted  and  the 
'  thing  reserved  and  excepted  in  and  by  the  grant.     The  Spanish  version  was 

in  his  words  and  expressed  his  intention,  and  though  the  American  version 
^  showed  the  intention  of  this  government  to  be  different,  we  cannot  adopt  it 

as  the  rule  by  which  to  decide  what  was  granted,  what  excepted,  and  what 
(reserved;  the  rules  of  law  are  too  clear  to  be  mistaken  and  too  imperative 

to  be  disregarded  by  this  court.  We  must  be  governed  by  the  clearly 
^expressed  and  manifest  intention  of  the  grantor,  and  not  the  grantee  in 
i,;  private,  a  fortiori  in  public  grants." 

I      We  come  now  to  a  consideration  of  the  Treaty  itself,  with 

[jthese  points  established: 

y      1.  The  Spanish  King  was  the  sovereign  of  the  Netherlands. 

2.  Those  states  revolted,  made  war  against  Spain,  seized  her 
fortresses,  cities,  and  provinces  in  the  Low  Countries,  and  her 
•other  possessions  wherever  they  were  able. 


288  DUTCH  TITLE. 

,3.  In  1648,  the  Netherlands  having  demonstrated  their  ability 
to  maintain  their  independence  and  to  retain  the  places  they  had 
seized,  Spain  yielded  and  concluded  a  peace,  recognizing  the  in- 
dependence of  the  States  General,  and  renouncing  her  sovereignty 
over  the  places  held  by  the  Dutch. 

4.  The  Dutch  asserted  no  claim  whatever^  had  no  pretense  of  a 
claim  to  any  Spanish  territory  save  that  which  they  had  pos- 
sessed themselves  of  in  the  war;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  Spain's 
claim  to  the  sovereignty  of  all  the  territory  seized  by  the  Dutch 
during  the  war,  and  possessed  by  them  at  its  conclusion,  was  not 
lost  in  law. 

The  preamble  of  the  Treaty  declares  that  the  object  sought  by 
it  was  "a  good  and  sincere  pacification  on  both  sides  and  the 
sweet  fruits  of  an  entire  and  firm  repose  and  quiet."  (V.  C,  vol. 
3,  p.  5). 

Article  II  declares  that  the  peace  "shall  be  good,  firm,  faith- 
ful and  inviolable; "  that  all  acts  of  hostility  of  every  kind  shall 
cease,  by  land  and  sea,  in  all  their  lands  and  dominions,  for  all 
persons  and  places. 

It  must  be  assumed,  therefore,  unless  some  matter  of  dispute  — 
some  claim  by  one  party  against  the  other — is  by  the  treaty  itself 
distinctly  excepted,  that  all  such  matters  were  concluded  by  the 
treaty. 

If,  therefore,  it  was  known  to  the  Dutch  at  the  time  of  the 
signing  of  the  Treaty  that  Spain  claimed  the  whole  of  the  dis- 
puted territory,  and  that  she  would  regard  any  attempt  by  the 
Dutch  to  extend  the  bounds  of  their  possessions  there  as  an  en- 
croachment upon  her  rights,  it  must  be  assumed  that  it  was  the 
purpose  of  both  parties  to  settle  that  controversy. 

In  this  connection  it  is  not  important  to  determine  whether 
Spain's  claim  was  strictly  well  founded  in  law.  It  is  enough  that 
she  strenuously  and  in  good  faith  claimed  the  territory;  that  an 
invasion  of  it  would  be  regarded  and  treated  by  her  as  a  hostile 
act.     If  this  was   known  to   the   Dutch   when   the  Treaty  waS 


TREATY    OF    MUNSTER.  289 

signed,  then  the  stipulation  that  they  were  not  to  extend  their 
bounds  in  derogation  of  the  Treaty  must  be  construed  to  be  an 
engagement  not  to  invade  or  appropriate  territory  thus  claimed 
by  Spain. 

An  interpretation  that  would  allow  the  Dutch,  immediately 
after  the  signing  of  the  Treaty,  to  send  expeditions  and  settle- 
ments into  territorj^  claimed  by  Spain,  and  not  expressly  ceded  by 
the  Treaty,  would  be  an  illustration  of  that  hateful  bad  faith 
mentioned  by  Grotius  (Vol.  II,  p.  144),  where  he  says: 

"  The  cavil  of  Brasicliis,  therefore,  is  highly  abominable,  who,  promising 
that  he  would  evacuate  the  Boeotian  territory,  said  lie  did  not  consider  that 
as  Boeotian  territory  which  he  occupied  with  his  army;  as  if  the  ancient 
bounds  were  not  intended,  but  only  what  remained  unconqnered,  an 
evasion,  which  entirely  annulled  the  treaty." 

The  adjustment  of  differences  between  Spain  and  the  Dutch 
was  so  comprehensive  in  the  Treaty  that  not  only  national  claims, 
but  a  long  list  of  individual  claims  were  taken  account  of  and 
settled.  It  seems  to  us,  therefore,  to  be  '* highly  abominable"  to 
construe  any  disputable  clause  of  a  treaty,  introduced  by  such  a  dec- 
laration of  its  purpose,  to  mean  that  the  Dutch  were  given  liberty 
to  "  conquer  and  possess  "  territory  then  claimed  by  Spain;  that  is, 
to  make  war  upon  Spain  if  she  defended  her  claims.  It  involves 
the  grossest  absurdity  and  the  grossest  injustice  to  the  Dutch 
negotiators  to  assume  that  they  intended  to  cover,  by  such  a 
phrase,  a  right  to  appropriate  territory  claimed  by  Spain— and 
that  without  limits. 

Article  III  of  the  Treaty  refers  to  Europe  exclusively,  and  we 
do  not  suppose  that  as  to  the  lands,  fortresses  and  cities,  described 
therein,  it  will  be  denied  that  th(^re  was  a  cession  of  them  by 
Spain  to  the  Dutch.  The  Treaty  was  the  formal  renunciation  of 
I  Spanish  sovereignty,  and  the  transfer  of  dominion  to  the  States 
General.  It  was  a  necessary  act  to  divest  Spain's  title,  and  to 
I    convert  the  Dutch  seizure  in  war  into  a  perfect  title. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  stipulation  in  behalf  of  Spain  was 


200  DUTCH  TITLE. 

neither  a  Dutch  cession  nor  a  limitation  of  Spain's  possessions;  but 
was  to  say,  "What  you  have  taken  you  shall  keep;  what  you  have 
not  taken  I  retain."  It  was  not  a  mutual  cession.  Spain's  title  was 
not  "confirmed."  The  two  stipulations  did  not  stand  upon  the 
same  basis  at  all.  It  was  simpl}'^  a  method  of  drawing  a  line.  It 
was  to  put  the  case  both  affirmatively  and  negatively:  What  is 
on  that  side  I  grant  to  you;  what  is  on  this  side  I  do  not  grant, 
but  keep. 

Now,  this  being  the  plain  effect  and  meaning  of  the  Treaty,  as 
to  the  European  possessions  of  the  Dutch,  why  shall  a  different 
construction  be  placed  upon  a  similar  stipulation  in  Article  V,  re- 
lating to  other  places  which  the  Dutch  had  occupied  during  the 
war?  It  should  be  noticed  that  in  Article  III,  "as  to  the  three- 
quarters  of  the  Over-Maze"  it  was  provided  that  they  "  shall  re- 
main in  the  State  they  are  in  at  present."  But  there  seems  to  have 
been  some  reason  to  think  that  a  controversy  might  arise  as  to 
what  that  "state  "  was,  and  a  special  provision  was  made  for  set- 
tling such  a  controversy  if  it  arose— a  further  manifestation  of  a 
purpose  by  the  Treaty  to  settle  all  possible  causes  of  controversy. 

The  situation  then  as  to  the  lands  and  places  mentioned  in 
Article  III  was  this:  After  the  Treaty  the  Dutch  could  support 
their  title  as  assignees  of  Spain's  title,  precisely  as  Great  Britain 
now  supports  her  title  to  Guiana  by  the  Dutch  cession  of  1814. 

We  come  now  to  the  consideration  of  Article  V  which  deals 
with  the  Dutch  possessions  in  Guiana.  The  provision  is  as 
follows: 

"  V. — The  navigation  and  trade  to  the  East  and  West  Indies  shall  be 
kept  up  and  comformably  to  the  grants  made  or  to  be  made  for  that  effect; 
for  the  security  whereof  the  present  treaty  shall  serve,  and  the  Ratification 
thereof  on  both  sides,  which  shall  be  obtained;  and  in  the  said  treaty  shall 
be  comprehended  all  potentates,  nations,  and  people,  with  whom  the  said 
Lords  the  States,  or  members  of  the  East  and  West  India  Companies  in 
their  name,  within  the  limits  of  their  said  grants,  or  in  friendship  and  alli- 
ance. And  each  one,  that  is  to  say,  the  said  Lords  the  King  and  States  re- 
epectively,  shall  remain  in  possession  of  and  enjoy  such  lordships,  towns. 


TREATY    OF    MUNSTER.  291 

castles,  fortresses,  commerce  and  countries  of  the  East  and  West  Indies,  as 
well  as  of  Brazil,  and  on  the  coasts  of  Asia,  Africa  and  America  respectively, 
which  the  said  Lords  the  King  and  States  respectively  hold  and  possess,  in 
this  beinf?  specially  comprised  the  spots  and  places  which  the  Portuguese 
since  the  year  1641,  have  taken  from  the  said  Lords  the  States  and  occu- 
pied :  comprising  also  the  spots  and  places  which  the  said  Lords  the  States 
hereafter  without  infraction  of  the  present  treaty  shall  come  to  conquer  and 
possess." 

We  quote  here  also  Article  VI  of  the  Treaty: 

"  VI.— And  as  to  the  West  Indies,  the  snbjects  and  inhabitants  of  the 
kingdoms,  provinces  and  lands  of  the  said  Lords,  the  King  and  States 
respectively,  shall  forbear  sailing  to,  and  trading  in  any  of  the  har- 
bours, places,  forts,  lodgments  or  castles,  and  all  others  possessed  by 
the  one  or  the  other  party,  viz.,  the  subjects  of  the  said  Lord  the  King 
shall  not  sail  to,  or  trade  in  those  held  and  possessed  by  the  said  Lords 
and  States,  nor  the  subjects  of  the  said  Lords  and  States  sail  to  or 
trade  in  those  held  and  possessed  by  the  said  Lord  the  King.  And  among 
the  places  held  by  the  said  Lords  the  States,  shall  be  comprehended  the 
places  in  Brazil,  which  the  Portuguese  took  out  of  the  hands  of  the 
States,  and  have  been  in  possession  of  ever  since  the  year  16 il,  as  also  all 
the  other  places  which  they  possess  at  present,  so  long  as  they  shall  con- 
tinue in  the  hands  of  the  said  Portuguese,  anything  contained  in  the 
preceding  article  notwithstanding." 

Of  this  last  article,  the  British  Counter-Case  (p.  43)  says: 
"  The  object  of    Article  VI  was  entirely  different  from  that  of  Ar- 
ticle V.     It  related  to  trade." 

Not  so;  for  Article  V  also  relates  to  trade.  It  opens  with 
a  most  important  trade  stipulation,  and  closes  with  another. 
Neither  article  relates  exclusively  to  trade.  The  trade  limits 
prescribed  by  Article  VI  are  the  respective  "possessions"  of 
the  Dutch  and  of  Spain;  and  the  definitions  of  those  Dutch 
possessions,  actual  and  contingent,  there  given,  are  effective, 
standing  alone,  to  confirm  an  exclusive  Dutch  claim  to  do- 
minion as  well  as  to  trade.  It  seems,  for  some  reason,  to 
have  been  thought  necessary  by  the  Dutch— -who,  we  are  told, 
were  dictating  the  Treaty— that  the  description  of  the   Dutch 


I 


292  DUTCH  TITLE. 

"possessions'*  in  the  West  Indies  and  Brazil,  contained  in 
Article  V,   should  be  more  clearly  stated. 

Articles  V  and  VI  must  therefore  be  read  together,  for 
both  contain  a  description  of  places  that  were  to  be  taken  to 
be  held  and  possessed  by  the  Dutch,  though  not  actually  so 
possessed.  Indeed,  the  description  in  Article  VI  is  declared 
to  be  the  more  authoritative,  for  it  is  to  prevail  "anything 
contained  in  the  preceding  article  notwithstanding."  Article  V 
declared  that  the  places  possessed  by  the  Dutch  should  be  held 
to  comprise— 

"  the  spots  and  places  which  the  Portuguese  since  the  year  1641,  have 
taken  from  the  said  Lords  the  States  and  occupied  :  comprising  also  the 
S])ots  and  places  which  the  said  Lords  the  States  hereafter  without  infi-ac- 
tion  of  the  present  ti*eaty  shall  come  to  couc^uer  and  possess." 

This  apparently  left  it  an  open  question  whether  the  Dutch 
could  seize  Portuguese  possessions,  other  than  those  which  the 
Portuguese  had  taken  from  them,  "  without  infraction  of  the 
present  treaty,"  and  that  was  to  be  made  plain  by  Article 
VI,  which  was  to  prevail,  "anything  contained  in  the  pre- 
ceding article  notwithstanding." 

The  thought  here  manifestly  was:  Portugal  had  been  under 
the  Spanish  crown;  had  revolted  in  1640,  but  Spain  had  not  yet 
recognized  her  independence  and  still  had  a  claim  to  Portugal 
and  to  all  Portuguese  settlements.  An  attempt,  thei-efore,  by  tlie 
Dutch  to  seize  Portuguese  possessions,  other  than  those  which 
the  Portuguese  had  taken  from  them,  and  which  wei-e  specifically 
provided  for  in  Article  VI,  might  be  construed  to  be  the  taking 
of  territory  to  Tvhich  Spain  had  a  claim.  Therefore,  the  added 
stipulation  in  Article  VI: 

"  As  also  all  otlier  places  which  they  possess  at  present,  so  long  as  they 
shall  continue  in  the  hands  of  the  said  Portuguese." 

The  Dutch  thought  of  expansion  for  their  Guiana  settlements 
was  towards  the  east,  and  against  Portugal,  and  they  wanted  the 


TREATY    OF    MUNSTER.  293 

consent  of  Spain  that  they  might  seize  these  Portuguese  posses- 
sions, else  Spain  might  claim  that  such  a  seizure  was  an  infrac- 
tion of  the  Treaty.  But  even  this  right  was  not  conceded  fully. 
It  was  to  continue  only  so  long  as  these  lands  remained  *'in  the 
hands  of  the  said  Portuguese."  In  other  words,  if  Spain  suc- 
ceeded in  recovering  them  first,  the  Dutch  right  to  possess  them 
under  the  Treaty  was  at  an  end.  Spain  was  quite  willing  that  the 
Dutch  might  raid  the  settlements  of  her  revolted  province,  and 
that  manifestly  was  the  purpose.  A  permit  to  do  so  was  plainly 
what  was  intended  by  this  paragraph  in  Article  V: — 

"  comprising  also  the  spots  and  places  which  the  said  Lords  the  States 
liereafter  without  infraction  of  the  present  treaty  shall  come  to  conquer 
and  possess."' 

But  the  purpose  was  veiled.  Portugal  was  not  named,  and 
the  cautious  Dutchmen,  it  seems,  upon  reflection,  concluded  that 
it  was  necessary  to  have  a  specific  consent  from  Spain;  and  this 
Spain  was  willing  to  grant,  but  not  absolutely.  She  desired  to 
weaken  Portugal,  and  was  willing  to  stimulate  the  Dutch  to 
a  raid  upon  her  settlements;  but  she  reserved  her  rights  if  she 
should  be  so  fortunate  as  to  be  able  to  seize  them  first. 

Article  VI  deals  completely  with  the  subject  of  the  posses- 
sions of  the  respective  parties  in  the  West  Indies  and  Brazil. 
Neither  is  to  trade  to  the  places  possessed  by  the  other;  which  is 
to  say,  as  in  Article  V,  that  each  shall  hold  what  it  possesses. 
But  it  was  not  thought  to  be  enough  to  leave  the  places  which 
might  thereafter  be  possessed  by  the  Dutch  as  they  were  defined 
in  Article  V;  and  a  new  definition  is  attempted,  which  must  be 
taken  to  include  all  of  the  future  acquisitions  which  were  to  be 
allowed  by  Spain  to  the  Dutch  in  the  regions  referred  to.  It  is, 
therefore,  we  think,  according  to  the  rules  of  construction,  to  be 
taken  as  the  final  and  authoritative  declaration— as  a  revised 
restatement,  of  those  places  which  might  be  added  to  the 
actual  Dutch  possessions.  The  language  of  Article  VI  as  to 
such     possessions     carries    a    grant,     and    would    be    complete 


204  DUTCH  TITLE. 

and  effectual  as  such  even  if  nothing  had  been  said  about 
these  places  in  Article  V.  Indeed  this  description  in  Article  VI 
of  the  places  to  be  contingently  possessed  by  the  Dutch  is  ex- 
pressly declared  to  be  the  one  that  shall  prevail — not  as  to  trade 
merely,  but  as  to  dominion.  It  is  manifestly  intended  to  be  a  full 
description  and  not  a  partial  one.  Why,  therefore,  if,  by  Article 
V,  the  places  which  '*  the  Lords  and  States  shall  come  to  conquer 
and  possess  "  in  the  West  Indies  and  Brazil  were  other  than  those 
places  which  they  might  conquer  from  Portugal,  were  they  not 
also  included  in  Article  VI?  Was  it  not  intended  to  secure  the 
trade  of  such  places  to  the  Dutch?  Why  was  not  the  language  of 
Article  V,  as  to  the  respective  possessions  of  the  parties,  repeated 
in  Article  VI?  Especially  why  was  the  stipulation  of  Article  V, 
as  to  the  places  that  they  should  come  to  conquer  and  possess,  not 
included  in  Article  VI,  if  it  was  intended  to  extend  to  any  other 
places  than  those  which  might  be  taken  from  Portugal?  Here  the 
Dutch  were  so  particular  as  to  secure  a  cession  from  Spain,  not 
only  of  the  territory  they  then  possessed  in  Guiana,  and  of 
territory  that  had  been  taken  from  them  by  Portugal,  but  to  pro- 
cure title  from  Spain  to  other  territory  then  held  by  the  Portu- 
guese, with  the  purpose  to  treat  the  title  so  procured  as  justifying 
them  in  seizing  other  lands  from  Portugal. 

If  Article  VI  did  not  have  the  effect  of  releasing  Spain's  claim 
to  dominion  as  well  as  to  trade,  the  seizing  of  dominion  by  the 
Dutch  would  have  been  an  infraction  of  the  treaty.  And, 
further,  if  there  were  other  contingent  possessions  of  the  Dutch, 
than  those  in  Brazil — if  they  were  given  a  right  to  take,  by  con- 
quest from  the  Indians  territory  claimed  by  Spain — why  were  not 
the  trade  stipulations  of  Article  VI  extended  to  such  places? 

Article  VI  of  the  Treaty,  as  a  trade  regulation,  would  have 
been  complete  with  a  statement  that  the  trade  of  each  nation  was 
to  be  confined  to  its  own  possessions,  actual  and  constructive  as 
scheduled  in  Article  V;  but,  for  some  i-eason,  the  Dutch  do  not 
seem  to  have  been  content  to  leave  it  so.     The  schedule  of  the 


TREATY    OF    MUNSTER.  295 

constructive  possessions  of  the  Dutch,  in  the  West  Indies  and 
Brazil,  is  restated.  And,  in  the  restatement,  the  provision  of 
Article  V  as  to  lands  to  be  conquered  and  possessed  is  omitted, 
and  in  the  place  of  it  we  have  the  item  relating  to  the  conquest  of 
places  from  the  Portuguese.  Plainly  this  was  intended  to  be  sub- 
stituted for,  or  to  furnish  an  explanation  and  limitation  of,  the 
clause  in  Article  V.  In  this  revised  schedule  these  words,  "as 
also  all  the  other  places  which  they  possess  at  present,  so  long  as 
they  shall  continue  in  the  hands  of  said  Portuguese,"  are  substi- 
tuted for  the  words,  "  comprising  also  the  places  which  the  said 
Tjoids,  the  States  hereafter,  without  infraction  of  the  present 
treaty,  shall  come  to  conquer  and  possess."  The  new  schedule  de- 
fines the  places  that  may  be  conquered  and  possessed,  and  the 
definition  is  a  limitation. 

If,  as  the  British  Case  affirms,  Spain  was  "  practically  at  the 
mercy  of  the  Dutch,"  so  that  the  Dutch  could  and  did  dictate 
their  own  terms  in  the  treaty,  there  could  be  no  possible  reason, 
so  far  as  Spain  was  concerned,  for  any  veiled  or  doubtful  expres- 
sion of  any  concession  exacted  from  her.  If  the  Dutch  demanded 
a  right  to  extend  the  bounds  of  their  existing  settlements  to  the 
south  and  west,  and  the  demand  was  yielded,  we  should  look  for 
a  clear  statement  of  the  concession,  and  not  for  the  obscure  and 
doubtful  clause  to  which  that  effect  is  given  by  Great  Britain.  If 
a  veiled  expression  is  used,  instead  of  a  plain  and  direct  one,  we 
must  conclude  that  the  Dutch  had  some  reason  for  it,  and  one  that 
related  to  some  other  power  than  Spain.  No  reason  can  be  found, 
if  Spain  only  was  to  be  affected;  but  a  most  natural  one  is  found 
when  the  purpose  to  secure  a  release  from  Spain  to  territory  that 
was  to  be  wrested  from  Portugal  is  disclosed.  The  Dutch  did  not 
desire  that  Portugal  should  know,  in  advance,  of  the  contemplated 
raid  upon  Brazil,  and  Spain  was  quite  willing  that  Portugal 
should  be  taken  unawares.  It  was  not  simply  that  the  Dutch 
contemplated  the  recovery  of  the  territory  Portugal  had  taken 
from   them.      That,   perhaps,    could   not  be  hidden.      The  driv- 


296  DUTCH  TITLE. 

ing  of  Portugal  out  of  Brazil  was  a  thing  that  did  need  cover. 
But,  when  the  next  section  came  to  be  framed  the  cautious 
Dutchmen  who  were  dictating  the  treaty  apparently  concludefl 
that  the  veil  was  too  heavy;  that  Spain  might,  with  good  rea- 
son, claim  that  an  attempt  to  seize  the  territory  of  Portu- 
gal was  an  infraction  of  the  treaty,  and  this  must  be  provided 
against.  The  clause  introduced  in  Article  VI  makes  this  pro- 
vision, but  in  such  a  way  that  it  might  be  said— as  it  is  now  said 
—that  it  was  only  a  grant  of  an  exclusive  Dutch  right  to  trade  to 
Brazil,  while  it  was  really  effective  to  estop  Spain  from  treating 
the  conquest  of  Brazil  as  an  infraction  of  the  treaty,  and  to  trans- 
fer the  Spanish  title. 

We  remark  further  that— in  view  of  the  great  care  taken  to 
specify  that  the  recovery  from  Portugal  of  settlements  made  by  the 
Dutch  in  Brazil,  and  even  the  seizure  of  the  whole  of  Brazil  from 
the  Portuguese,  should  not  be  treated  as  an  infraction  of  the 
treaty — it  is  impossible  to  believe  that  the  question  of  the  seizure 
of  territory  directly  from  Spain,  up  to  the  very  banks  of  the 
Orinoco,  would  not  also  have  been  provided  for  if  such  a  project 
had  then  been  contemplated.  The  Dutch  knew  that  such  a 
seizure  would  be  regarded  as  an  infraction  of  the  treaty,  even 
more  certainly  than  the  recovery  of  the  lost  Dutch  settlements  or 
the  seizure  of  other  Portuguese  territory  from  which  Spain  had 
already  been  driven.  The  contemporaneous  acts  of  the  Dutch 
confirm  our  contention;  for,  as  Great  Britain  concedes,  it  was  not 
until  the  allowed  extension  on  the  Amazon  had  been  balked  that 
the  Dutch  turned  their  eyes  to  the  prohibited  west. 

It  is  not  capable  of  belief  that,  while  taking  such  care  to 
acquire  the  cession  of  Spain  to  territories  in  the  actual  possession 
of  Portugal,  and  which  could  not  be  recovered  except  by  war, 
the  Dutch  were  left  at  liberty, without  any  infraction  of  the  treaty, 
and  without  any  stipulation  that  it  should  not  be  so  regarded, 
to  extend  their  possession  on  the  west,  even  to  the  Orinoco  itself. 

In  the  British  Counter-Case  (p.  41),  it  is  said: 


TREATY    OF    MUNSTER.  29t 

"  In  the  absence  of  provision  to  the  contrary  Spain  might  have  claimed 
tlie  right  to  possess  any  territory  won  back  from  Portugal.  This  concession 
to  the  Dutch  was  a  recognition  of  their  right  to  acquire,  if  they  could* 
territory  which  Spain  had  at  one  time  hoped  to  regain.  But  the  words 
which  immediately  follow — '  including  also  the  localities  and  places  which 
the  same  Lords  States  shall  hereafter  without  infraction  of  the  present 
Treaty  come  to  conquer  and  possess,'  clearly  introduce  and  refer  to  a  com- 
pletely new  subject.  They  contemplate  something  beyond,  and  in  addition 
to,  the  recaptures  to  be  made  from  Portugal;  they  are  unnecessary  if  they 
only  refer  to  territory  occupied  by  Portugal." 

The  fault  here  is,  that  the  fact  that  there  were  two  classes  of 
"territory  occupied  by  Portugal"  is  suppressed.  Article  V.  ex- 
l)ressly  provides  for  one  class,  namely,  lands  taken  from  the  Dutch 
by  Portugal;  but  the  other  class,  namely,  lands  of  the  Portuguese, 
that  the  Dutch  had  never  possessed,  are  only  included  by  reference 
to  the  general  clause.  Those  lands  were  the  *'  new  subject "  re- 
ferred to  in  that  clause. 

Portugal  itself  and  all  these  Portuguese    settlements    were 
claimed  by  Spain;  and  the  seizure  of  them  by  any  other  sovereign 
would  have  been  an  act  of  war  against  Spain,  precisely  as  the 
seizure  of  the  State  of  Florida  by  Great  Britain,  during  the  Civil 
War  ill  America,  would    have  been  an  act  of   war  against  the 
United  States.     The   revolt  of  Portugal  had  not  destroyed  the 
I     Spanish  title,  and  the  Dutch  plenipotentiaries  at  Munster  did  not 
make  the  mistake  of  supposing  that  they  could  seize  territory 
from  Portugal  without  the  consent  of  Spain.     Indeed,  but  for  the 
^     purpose  of  the   Dutch   to  seize  those  lands  from  Portugal,  the 
I     words  referred  to  would  have  been  unnecessary,  and  not  only 
^    unnecessary,  but  an  insult  to  Dutch  sovereignty.     Can  it  be  sup- 
posed that  the  Dutch  — whose  sovereignty  was  acknowledged  by 
the  Treaty — found  it  necessary  to  stipulate  with  Spain  that  they 
might  possess  and  own  lands  that  they  should  thereafter  conquer 
from  England,  or  lands  that  they  should  discover  aud  settle?   Such 
rights  are  inherent  in  sovereignty,  and  it  cannot  be  supposed  that 
the  proud  Dutch  plenipotentiaries,  dictating  a  treaty  of  peace— as 


208  DUTCH  TITLE. 

we  are  told— thought  it  necessary  to  stipulate  for  the  consent  of 
Spain  that  they  might  in  the  future  acquire  title  to  territory  to 
which  Spain  had  no  claim,  through  those  ordinary  sources  of  title 
by  which  national  dominion  is  acquired.  The  stipulation  that  their 
possessions  should  extend  to  places  that  they  should  thereafter 
conquer  and  possess  must  have  relation  to  Spain  and  to  the  tak- 
ing of  some  territory  to  which  Spain  had  a  claim;  else  it  is  not 
only  senseless  but  derogatory  to  Dutch  sovereignty. 

In  the  absence  of  a  further  provision  to  the  contrary,  Spain 
might  rightly  have  regarded  any  attempt  to  seize,  from  Portugal, 
territory  other  than  such  as  had  been  taken  from  the  Dutch,  as 
an  invasion  of  Spain's  rights  and  an  infraction  of  the  treaty. 
The  words  quoted  were  necessary  to  cover  the  case  if  the  Dutch 
desired  to  have  the  right  to  seize  from  Portugal  territojy  other 
than  that  which  they  (the  Dutch)  had  once  possessed.  So  these 
words  are  given  a  meaning.  They  are  interpreted  by  Article  VI. 
Why  should  they  be  supposed  to  give  the  right  to  seize  ter- 
ritory anywhere  claimed  by  Spain  at  the  date  of  the  Treaty? 
They  cannot  liave  such  a  meaning.  A  treaty  of  peace  cannot 
be  construed  to  give  liberty  to  one  nation  to  conquer  territory 
claimed  by  others;  nor  can  any  reasonable,  disinterested  man 
persuade  himself  that  it  was  the  purpose  of  the  treaty,  either 
expressed  or  implied,  that  the  Dutch— after  being  secured  in 
the  places  they  then  possessed — were  given  permission  to  ex- 
tend their  bounds  indefinitely  into  territory  claimed  by  Spain. 
It  would  be  to  say,  "Keep  all  you  have  taken  from  us  and  take 
all  you  can.  It  was  never  in  the  contemplation  of  either  party  to 
the  Treaty  of  Munster  that  the  Dutch  should  be  at  liberty  to 
spread  their  possessions  westward  and  in  the  interior,  so  as  to 
possess  " the  Dardanelles  of  the  Orinoco"  and  to  "approach  to 
the  very  heart  of  Spanish  Guiana." 

The  United  States  Commission  requested  Prof.  George  Lincoln 
Burr,  of  Cornell  University,  to  prepare  and  submit  a  report  as  tO; 
the  meaning  of  the  clause  "comprising  the  places  which  the  saidj 


TREATY    OP    MUNSTER.  299 

Lords  the  States  hereafter  without  infraction  of  the  present  treaty 
shall  come  to  conquer  and  possess,"  found  in  Article  V  of  the 
Treaty  of  Munster.  The  report  submitted  by  him  is  printed  in 
volume  2  of  the  Counter-Case  of  Venezuela.  Professor  Burr,  after 
making  the  report,  was  sent  by  the  Commission  t  >  make  an  ex- 
amination of  the  Dutch  Archives,  and  found  nothing  inconsist- 
ent with  the  conclusions  he  had  reached.     He  shows: 

1 .  That  the  only  places  mentioned  or  suggested  by  the  record 
e  have  of  the  negotiations  that  led  up  to  the  treaty,  as  being  in 

^he  minds  of  the  Plenipotentiaries  in  the  use  of  the  terms  other 
"places"  that  the  Dutch  might  "  conquer  and  possess,"  were 
those  to  be  won  from  the  Portuguese  in  Brazil. 

2.  That  in  all  the  controversies  and  conflicts  that  followed  the 
treaty  as  to  territorial  rights,  the  Dutch  never  appealed  to  the 
Treaty  of  Munster  in  support  of  any  aggressions  on  territory 
claimed  by  Spain;  never  sought  to  use  the  treaty  as  Great  Britain 
is  now  seeking  to  use  it.* 

1^.  That  among  all  the  authorities  consulted  by  him  he  had 
j  found  no  other  interpretation  of  the  clause  under  consideration 

than  that  it  refers  to  Portuguese  possessions.     (V.  C.-C,  vol.  ii, 

p.  13.) 

The  failure  of  the  Dutch  Governor  of  Essequibo  and   of  the 

States  General,  in  any  of  their  conflicts  with  Spain,  to  refer  to 
;!  this  clause  of  Article  V  of  the  treaty  as  justifying  the  attempted 
'*  extensions  of  the  Dutch  boundaries  should,  we  think,  be  accepted 

as  a  conclusive  construction  of  the  clause.  If  it  had  the  meaning 
I  now  contended  for,  it  was  the  sole  basis  upon  which  such  exten- 
I  sions  could  be  justified.  If  the  Dutch  limits  had  depended  upon 
:{  conquests  from  the  natives,  the  resident  Governors  who  had  made 

tlie  conquests  would  have  known  their  limits  and  would  not  have 


*  In  a  note  (V.  C-C,  vol.  ii,  p.  18)  written  after  his  examination  at  The  Hague,  Professor 

Burr  Bays:  "To  other  clauses  of  the  Treaty  I  find  the  Dutch  appealing  ;  to  this  never."     Jn 

the  same   note  he  gives  an  instance  where  Spain  did  apj)eal  to  it  in  a  protest  against  a  pro- 

,  posed  Dutch  settlement  in  the  region  of  Darien  ;  and  in  a  postscript  (/6.  p.  14)  he  gives  another 

Spanish  exposition  of  the  treaty  addressed  to  the  Dutch  Government  in  1786. 


300  DUTCH  TITLE. 

been  appealing  to  the  home  authorities  to  give  them  a  boundary. 
Every  act  of  resistance  by  Spain  to  the  extension  of  the  limits  of 
Essequibo  was  a  disaffirmance  of  the  construction  of  the  Treaty 
now^  set  up.  And  the  failure  of  the  Dutch  at  any  time  to  set  up 
the  Treaty  as  a  justification  of  such  extension  gives  us  a  cont^em- 
poraneous  construction  by  both  the  parties  to  the  Treaty. 

We  then  have  Great  Britain  insisting  upon  a  construction  of 
this  clause  that  was  never  claimed  for  it  by  the  Dutch;  that  was 
always  repudiated  by  Spain;  and  that  is  inconsistent  with  the 
reason  and  spirit,  and,  indeed,  with  the  very  words  of  the  treaty. 
It  should  be  noted  that  if  the  British  construction  is  admitted, 
this  clause  of  Article  V  cannot  be  limited  to  Guiana,  but  em- 
braces the  whole  world,  and  gives  to  the  Dutch  the  right  to 
"conquer  and  possess"  any  lands  claimed  by  Spain  the  world 
around,  that  they  might  assume  were  not  "effectively  occupied" 
by  her,  in  the  sense  of  those  terms  given  in  the  British  Case. 
There  is  no  limitation  of  the  clause  that  can  be  suggested,  save, 
that  it  related  to  the  Portuguese  possession. 

It  is  said  (B.  C.-C,  p.  M)  that  before  1648  the   Dutch  did  not; 
recognize  Spain's  title  to  territory  not  effectively  occupied  by  her, 
but  expressly   repudiated   such   title,   whether   based    upon   the 
Papal   Bull  or  upon  discovery.     As  to  title  by  discovery,  this  if 
not  a  cori'ect  statement  of  the  Dutch  position.    Discovery,  as  a 
source  of  title,  was  recognized  by  the  Dutch  as  by  every  othei 
European  nation;  and  the  doctrine  of  the  British  Case,  as  to  thi 
character  of  the  occupation  necessary  to  perfect  that  title,  waj 
never  put  forward   by  the  Dutch,  or  by  Great  Britain,   in  tb 
seventeenth  century.     The  views  expressed  by  the  Dutch  in  th 
New  Netlierland  controversy  were,  as  we  have  seen,  such  as  woui 
give  to  Spain  a  wide  claim  in  Guiana. 

Spain's  claim  to  the  whole  of  Guiana  might  be  contested,  bi 
it  was  not  to  be  treated  as  baseless  or  fictitious,  and  was  not 
treated  by  the  Dutch.     They  well  knew  that  the  Spanish  clair 
made  their  rights  insecure.    They  demanded  and  secured  a  releas 


i 


TREATY    OF    MUNSTER.  801 

of  that  title  and  afterwards  set  up  that  cession  as  a  muniment  of 
the  Dutch  title.  They  were  careful  to  get  a  release  to  all  terri- 
tory claimed  by  Spain  that  they  then  occupied,  to  all  that  they 
had  once  occupied  and  had  lost  to  Portugal,  and  to  any  further 
teiritory  they  might  be  able  to  take  from  Portugal  in  the  future. 

Now,  as  to  lands  on  the  west;  they  kneiv  them  to  be  claimed 
by  Spain;  they  knew  that  any  occupancy  of  them  would  be 
treated  by  Spain  as  an  infraction  of  the  treaty;  they  took  pains 
in  Article  VI  to  specify  against  a  seizure  from  Portugal  being  so 
construed,  and  would  have  taken  the  same  precaution  on  the 
west  if  they  had  supposed  they  were  securing  the  right  to  occupy 
them.  They  left  Spain's  claim  there  untouched,  and  not  there- 
after to  be  contested  by  them. 

The  British  use  made  of  the  clause  of  Article  V  of  the  treai^y 
relating  to  places  to  be  thereafter  conquered,  involves  the  conces- 
jsion  that  without  it  the  Dutch  could  not  have  extended  their 
'bounds  without  an  infraction  of  the  treaty.  It  conferred  the 
I  right  to  take  territory  somewhere  that  could  not  otherwise  have 
ibeen  taken.  Great  Britain  says  it  was  the  disputed  territory— if 
[it  was,  then  the  Dutch  acknowledged  Spanish  rights  there. 

This  statement,  made  in  the  British  Counter-Case  (p.  132,  par. 
1 14)  seems  to  commit  Great  Britain  definitely  to  the  proposition 
[that  any  Dutch  right  to  extend  their  possessions  in  Guiana  is 
jiderived  from  the  Treaty  of  Munster: 

I  ''  Those  settlements  [on  the  PomeroonJ  were  not  in  violation  of  the 
Treaty  of  Munster,  but  were  expressly  in  accordance  with  the  rights 
reserved  to  the  Dutch  by  the  Vth  Article  of  that  Treaty." 

It  follows  that  unless  the  British  contention  as  to  the  meaning 
of  the  disputed  clause  of  Article  V  is  allowed,  the  Dutch  had  no 
iright  to  extend  their  possessions  in  Guiana. 

The  treaty  must  be  construed  in  the  light  of  the  known  claims 
Df  the  parties  to  it.  These  were;  Spain's  direct  claim  to  the  whole 
of  Guiana  and  to  Brazil  through  Portugal;  and  a  Dutch  claim  to 
what  they  had  taken  and  then  occupied  in  Brazil  and  in  Guiana, 


302  DUTCH  TITLE. 

and  to  what  they  had  lost  in  Brazil,  after  occupation,  to  Portugal 
since  her  revolt.     The   Dutch   made  no  claim   to  any  lands  in 
Guiana  beyond  the  proper  line  of  their  then  possessions.     These 
claims  made  all  of  the  disputed  territory  to  belong  to  one  or  to  the 
othei-,  and  the  adjustment  of  these  claims  required  the  drawing 
of  a  boundary;  there  w^as  no  other  way.     And  it  must  be  pre- 
sumed, if  not  expressly  left  open  for  a  future  adjustment,  tha 
these  claims  were  adjusted  by  the  treaty.    The  Dutch  dictated 
the  treaty,  and  it  must  be  construed  strictly  against  them.    Spai 
is  not  to  be  taken  to  have  released  any  territorial  claim  by  implica 
tion;  nor  can  the  Dutch  rest  a  claim  to  make  future  ''great  exten 
sions  "  of  their  possessions  upon  im^jlications  or  doubtful  phrases 
A  specific  enumeration  of  what  the  Dutch  were  to  have  cannot  b 
enlarged  by  implication.     It  is  equivalent  to  saying  they  shal 
have  nothing  else  at  the  cost  of  Spain.     If,  before  the  treaty, 
the    Dutch   might    have    disputed    Spain's    claim    to    adjoinin 
territory  not  within  her  effective  occupation,  they  could  not  do  s 
afterwards.     The  consideration  for  Spain's  confirmation   of  the 
Dutch  title  was  the  limitation  of  the  Dutch   title  to  their  actual 
possessions.      Spain   claimed   that  she  possessed    the    whole    of 
Guiana  by  a  perfected  discoverer's  title,  and  the  treaty  adjusted 
that  claim.     Unless,  therefore,  it  contains  an  express  stipulation 
that  the  Dutch  may  further  limit  Spain's  claims,  such  extensions 
were  wrongful.     The  phrase  as  to  other  places  to  be  conquered 
and  possessed,  having  by  the  treaty  been  given  an  express  appli- 
cation to  the  Portuguese  possessions,  cannot  by  implication  be 
construed  to  further  restrict  Spain's  claims  or  to  take  f loni  her 
territory  not  specified.     A  construction  that  would  authorize  the 
Dutch  to  build  a  post  at  Barima  the  next  day  after  the  signing, 
would  violate  every  rule  of  construction  and  make  the  treaty  a 
trick  and  a  fraud. 

If  the  Dutch  did  not  regard  Spain  as  having  any  claim  to 
the  settlements  they  possessed  in  1()48,  in  (Juiana,  and  did  not 
ask  or  take  any  grant  or  release  from   Spain  as  to   them,  why 


TREATY    OF    MUNSTER.  803 

should  they  be  so  careful  to  get  the  consent  of  Spain  to  the  recon- 
quest  of  what  they  had  lost  to  Portugual?  What  had  Spain  to  do 
with  that?  If  the  Dutch  occupation  of  those  places  gave  them  a 
])erfect  title— and  it  was  the  same  title  they  had  to  Essequibo— the 
right  to  retake  them  was  equally  perfect.  It  is  only  because, 
back  of  the  Dutch  occupation  of  all  these  places— those  held  as 
well  as  those  lost— there  was  Spain's  claim  and  right,  which 
the  Dutch  insisted  must  be  released  to  them.  Now  they  knew 
that  this  same  Spanish  claim  covered  all  of  Guiana,  and  that 
as  to  the  region  now  in  dispute  no  other  nation  had  then  any 
pretense  of  dominion  or  settlement.  Is  it  then  to  be  supposed 
that,  while  taking  a  transfer  of  the  Spanish  title  to  lands  that 
Spain  had  lost  to  them,  either  by  conquest  or  occupation,  and 
to  other  lands  lost  to  the  Portuguese  in  war,  the  Dutch  were 
left  at  liberty  to  appropriate,  at  their  pleasure,  Spain's  title  to 
lands  she  had  never  lost,  without  an  express  cession?  The  title 
the  Dutch  took  from  Spain  to  the  lands  they  possessed  was  pre- 
cisely the  same  title  that  Spain  had  to  the  adjoining  lands,  and  if 
they  had  contemplated  seizing  the  latter  they  would  not  have  left 
their  right  to  do  so  without  a  clear  expression. 

The  effect  of  the  treaty  was  to  cut  off,  from  a  region  claimed 
by  Spain,  specified  parts  thereof.  If  the  boundaries  of  the  parts 
given  to  the  Dutch  had  been  definitely  laid  down  in  the  treaty, 
the  legal  effect  would  not  have  been  different.  Yet,  if  the  treaty 
'had  fixed  the  Essequibo  as  the  western  boundary  of  the  Dutch 
possessions,  would  we  still  have  had  a  claim  that  the  Dutch  were 
at  liberty  to  go  beyond  it?  That  the  Essequibo  was  not  the 
boundary  between  Spain  and  the  Dutch? 

Spain  was  not  releasing  any  claim,  save  to  the  Dutch,  She  was 
not  making  a  cession  to  mankind,  or  establishing  a  world's  com- 
mon. The  Dutch  were  seeking  advantages  for  themselves  —to  ac- 
quire territory,  not  to  open  a  region  to  settlement  by  their  active 
trade  rivals  on  their  own  borders.  If  the  Essequibo  was  their 
western  boundary,  by  the  treaty,  it  was  not  to  their  interest  to 


304  DUTCH  TITLE. 

require  Spain  to  open  the  west  bank  to  an  English  or  a  Swedish 
settlement.  The  protest  against  a  Swedish  settlement  in  17?)4  on 
the  Barima,  shows  that  the  Dutch  did  not  then  hold  that  the 
region  was  terra  nullius,  but  that  Dutch  bounds  and  Spanish 
bounds  were  co-terminous;  that  there  was  no  room  for  strangers. 

We  think  it  must  be  clear  then  that,  unless  the  Treaty  of 
Munster  expressly  and  clearly  gives  to  the  Dutch  the  right  to 
extend  their  possessions  in  Guiana  in  derogation  of  Spain's  claims, 
any  such  extensions  would  be  an  infraction  of  the  treaty.  This 
conclusion  seems  to  be  accepted  by  Great  Britain,  for  she  seeks  to 
find  in  the  treaty  a  stipulation  authorizing  such  an  extension. 
The  contention  is  that  Article  V  of  the  Treaty  of  Munster,  in  the 
clause  so  much  disputed,  gave  to  the  Dutch  the  right  to  extend 
their  possessions  over  "the  unconquered  and  unoccupied  territo- 
ries then  in  the  possession  of  native  tribes"  (B.  C.-C,  pp.  41-42).^ 

Is  it  meant  that  this  right  to  "  conquer  and  possess ''  the  land^ 
between  the  Dutch  and  the  Spanish  settlements  was  a  specialJ 
exclusive  right  given  by  Spain  to  the  Dutch,  or  only  a  recogj 
nition  of  Spain's  want  of  title  to  these  lands;  that  they  wei 
res  nullius,  and  so  open  to  the  occu|)ation  of  all  nationsif  The 
propositions  are  inconsistent,  and  one  of  them  must  be  aban- 
doned.    If  the  first  is  maintained,  these  things  are  involved: 

1.  A  further  contingent  cession  by  Spain  of  territory  on  tlie 
west  of  the  Dutch  settlements. 

2.  The  recognition  by  the  Dutch  of  an  exclusive  Spanish  riyht 
to  this  territory.  For  Spain  could  not  ijrant  ivhat  she  did  not 
have.  If  the  Dutch  derived  from  the  treaty  an  exclusive  right 
to  occupy  the  disputed  territory,  then  Spain  before  had  that  ex- 
clusive right. 

8.  That  the  contingent  right  given  could  only  be  perfected 
by  a  conquest  of  the  native  tribes,  followed  by  an  effective  oc x  u- 
pation,  and  that  until  so  perfected,  it  remained  Spanish. 

4.  That  the  boundary  was  a  common,  but  a  shifting  and  in- 
determinate one. 


TREATY    OP    MUNSTER.  305 

We  think  we  are  quite  safe  in  saying  that,  from  the  very 
beginning,  neither  the  Dutch  nor  Spain  ever  allowed  that  there 
was  any  territory  between  the  Essequibo  and  the  Orinoco  that 
was  not  either  Dutch  or  Spanish  territory;  and  that  since  the 
cession  to  Great  Britain  that  government  and  Spain  have  held 
the  same  view.  Neither  party  to  this  contest— either  by  itself  or 
its  predecessor— has  ever  justified  its  entry  or  its  presence  in  any 
part  of  the  disputed  territory  upon  the  claim  that  it  was  ^' terra 
nullius,'^  after  1648.  The  Dutch  said,  "You  have  crossed  the 
line  into  oar  territory."  Spain's  answer  was,  "  No,  the  line  is 
not  there,  but  here."  Both  agreed  that  there  was  at  all  times  a 
common  boundary;  though  it  had  not  been  laid  down.  They  dif- 
fered as  to  its  location,  but  neither  claimed  at  any  time  that  the 
line  of  right  was  a  shifting  one— here  to-day,  there  to-morrow. 
In  all  these  disputes,  the  Dutch  never  defended  any  post  or 
shelter,  expedition  or  trade,  upon  the  theory  that  the  original 
bounds  of  the  colony,  as  prescribed  by  the  Treaty  of  Munster, 
had  been  enlarged  by  conquest,  or  that  any  adjoining  territory, 
outside  those  bounds,  was  not  Spanish.  Nor  did  they  ever 
claim  that  the  bounds  of  the  treaty  had  been  or  could  right- 
fully be  enlarged  within  the  disputed  territory,  by  virtue  of  any 
provision  in  the  treaty  itself. 

We  are  not  quite  sure  whether  the  British  case  is  rested  upon 
the  proposition  that  the  privilege  to  "  conquer  and  possess  "  is  to 
be  taken  as  a  general  renunciation  of  all  of  the  vast  regions 
claimed  by  Spain  throughout  the  world,  but  not  yet  "effectively 
occupied  "  (in  the  sense  of  the  British  contention),  or  only  as  a 
special  permit  to  the  Dutch  to  take  what  they  wanted.  And  it 
does  not  matter  much — for  neither  is  tenable. 

The  construction  that  the  right  to  acquire  by  conquest  related 
to  native  tribes,  is  contrary  to  the  accepted  European  view  of  the 
relation  of  these  tribes  to  the  territory  they  occupied.  Such  lands 
I  ^Were  not  treated  as  accessions  by  conquest,  but  by  discovery  or 
I  settlement;  and  only  a  nation    having  already  an  original  title 


80r>  •         DUTCH  TITLE. 

could,  either  by  conquest  or  treaty,  acquire  the  possessory  right  of 
the  tribes.  To  make  war  on  the  tribes  was  to  make  war  on  the 
nation  having  that  original  title,  if  there  were  such.  And  if  there 
were  none  such,  it  was  to  take  title  to  lands  terra  nullius  -  not  title 
by  conquest.  The  terms  "conquer  and  possess"  were  appropri- 
ate if  applied  to  territory  held  by  Portugal,  and  wholly  inappro- 
priate if  applied  to  lands  occupied  by  savage  tribes  and  owned  by 
no  civilized  nation. 

But,  if  the  British  construction  of  the  disputed  clause  of  Ar- 
ticle VI  could  be  allowed,  what  would  result?  That  construction 
is,  as  we  understand,  that  the  earlier  provisions  of  the  treaty  con- 
firmed the  Dutch  title  absolutely  to  the  places  in  Guiana  then 
possessed  by  them,  and  that  the  clause  in  question  gave  them 
the  right  to  conquer  from  the  native  tribes  and  to  possess  further 
territory  not  then  "effectually  occupied  "  by  Spain.  It  cannot  be 
claimed  that  this  clause  could  have  any  effect  to  make  the  then 
possessions  of  the  Dutch  any  larger  than  they  would  have  been 
without  it.  The  bounds  of  Essequibo  were  not  enlarged.  New 
territory  could  only  be  acquired  by  new  conquests  and  new  settle- 
ments. The  Dutch  objection  to  the  Spanish  title,  as  we  are  told, 
was  that  Spain's  occupation  of  the  territory  was  only  a  con- 
structive occupation,  and  it  will  hardly  be  argued  that  a  con- 
structive Dutch  occupation  was  to  be  made  effective.  The  neces- 
sary conclusion  from  the  British  premises  is,  that  the  Dutch  could 
acquire  new  territory  only  by  an  effective  conquest  and  an  actual 
occupation.  Now,  as  we  shall  show  in  another  place,  the  Dutch 
never  subdued  any  one  of  the  tribes,  and  never  made  a  permanent 
new  settlement  within  the  disputed  territory,  except  in  the  Pome- 
roon-Moruca  region. 

As  Mr.  Blaine  said,  in  one  of  his  despatches,  the  claims  of 
Great  Britain  in  Guiana  have  been  rested  on  a  "shifting  foot"; 
but  we  are  now  fairly  entitled  to  know  from  her  whether  her 
t;laims  in  the  Cuyuni  ba'sin  are  rested  upon  the  proposition  that 
the  Dutch  settlement  at  Essequibo  made  that  basin  a  Dutch  pos- 


TREATY    OF    MUNSTER.  307 

session  in  1648 — one  that  was  confirmed  by  the  general  clause  of 
the  treaty;  or  upon  the  ground  that  the  basin  was  part  of  that 
region  that  the  Dutch  were  given  the  right  thereafter  to  "con- 
quer and  possess."  To  affirm  the  latter  proposition  is  to  abandon 
the  water  shed  claim,  for  it  involves  a  Dutch  admission  by  treaty 
that  the  basin  was  not  appurtenant  to  Essequibo.  Our  answer  to 
the  water  shed  claim  will  be  made  in  another  place. 

We  have  perhaps  already  spent  too  much  time  in  this  discus- 
sion, and  we  therefore  conclude  it  by  saying: 

First.— That  both  of  the  signatories  to  the  Treaty  of  Munster 
treated  it  as  a  cession  by  Spain  to  the  Netherlands. 

Second. — That  the  absolute  cession  was  of  lands  actually  pos- 
sessed by  the  Dutch  at  the  date  of  signing. 

Third. — That  the  contingent  cession  related  wholly  to  places 
occupied  by  the  Portuguese. 

Fourth. — That  the  treaty  estabhshed  a  conjinon  Dutch-Spanish 
boundary,  and  neither  interposed  a  terra  nullius,  nor  gave  to 
the  Dutch  any  special  license  to  extend  their  possessions  to  the 
north  or  west. 

Fifth. — That  Great  Britain's  construction  of  the  treaty,  taken 
in  connection  with  her  contention  as  to  effective  occupation, 
involves  the  monstrous  and  impossible  conclusion  that  Spain  gave 
to  the  Dutch,  or  opened  to  the  world,  the  right  to  seize  the  mouth 
of  the  Orinoco,  and  to  isolate  all  of  her  settlements  in  the 
interior. 

Sixth. — That  to  give  a  disputable  phrase  in  a  treaty  of  peace 
a  construction  that  would  leave  unadjusted  so  important  and  so 
threatening  a  question  is  absolutely  inadmissible. 

Seventh. — That  any  extension,  within  the  disputed  territory,  of 
the  actual  Dutch  occupation  of  1648,  was  an  occupation  of  ter- 
ritory that  the  Dutch  had  admitted  to  be  Spanish  territory  and 
not  terra  nullius. 


CHAPTER  X. 

ADVERSE  HOLDING— DUTCH  BOUNDARY. 

There  is  no  more  important  branch  of  this  investigation  than 
the  examination  of  the  territorial  claim  of  the  Dutch  authorities 
during  the  century  and  a  half  of  their  possession  of  the  Colony  of 
Essequibo. 

By  the  Treaty  of  Munster  the  title  of  the  Netherlands  was 

.confirmed  to  the  possessions  which  they  had  carved  out  of  the 
territory    of   Spain,   and  the   two    European  States  were   thus 

^brought  into  territorial  contact.  The  Treaty  had  failed  to  state 
)y  geo;^raphical  points  or  lines  the  Dutch  boundary,  and  a  temp- 
ition  was  thus  offered  to  the  manufacture  of  pretensions  and 
;laims,  which  few  States  situated  as  the  Netherlands  then  were 
have  found  themselves  able  to  resist,  and  to  which  the  latter 
would  no  doubt  have  yielded  had  their  new  charter  in  1764  not 
restricted  them  in  terms  to  the  Essequibo  and  Pomeroon, 

The  situation  was  somewhat  exceptional,  by  reason  of  the  fact 
that  Essequibo  was  governed  not  by  officers  reporting  directly  to 
the  national  executive,  but  by  a  private  trading  corporation,  to 
which  vague  powers  of  government  had  been  delegated.  These 
powers,  as  has  been  explained,  included  the  ordinary  manage- 
ment of  the  foreign  relations  of  the  colony  as  they  arose  in  and 
near  the  colony  itself.  During  the  whole  period  of  one  hundred 
and  sixty-six  years  from  the  Treaty  of  Munster  to  the  Treaty  of 
London,  by  which  the  "Establishment  of  Essequibo"  was  ceded 
to  Great  Britain,  but  three  occasions  are  recorded  in  the  evidence 
where  the  Dutch  West  India  Company  called  upon  the  Government 
of  the  Netherlands  to  intervene,  and  upon  these  occasions  the 
local  authorities  of  the  colony  had  already  taken'international 
action.  During  all  the  period,  the  Company,  as  far  as  the  evidence 
shows,  were,  with  these  exceptions,  left  b^  the  States- General  to 


I 


:^10  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

manage  their  affairs  as  they  pleased.  Even  on  the  three  occasions 
referred  to,  when  representations  were  made  to  the  Spanish  Gov- 
ernment, the  States-General  took  the  facts  and  the  law  as  the 
Company  presented  them,  and  confined  their  action  to  directing 
the  Dutch  Ambassador  at  Madrid  to  give  formal  expression 
to  the  request  or  remonstrance  which  the  Company  set  up. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  the  question  of  importance  is  not  what 
the  States-General  thought  and  claimed,  but  what  that  branch  of 
the  Government  of  the  Netherlands  thought  and  claimed,  in 
which  resided  the  powers  which  the  States  General  had  set  apart 
and  delegated  for  the  purpose  of  managing  and  controlling  the 
colony.  Owing  to  their  deputed  powers  of  quasi-sovereignty,  the 
Company's  claims  and  the  Company's  admissions  were  the  claims 
and  admissions  of  the  State  itself. 

The  importance  of  this  inquiry  in  a  boundary  dispute  is  ob- 
vious. The  question  is.  What  are  the  rights  of  the  parties  to  the 
dispute?  A  court  cannot  take  their  respective  pretensions  as  evi- 
dence of  their  rights,  but  it  can  and  must  take  the  limits  of  their 
pretensions  as  evidence  of  that  to  which  they  have  no  right. 
When  one  State  claims  a  certain  point  as  marking  the  boundary 
between  it  and  another  State,  it  admits  the  title  of  the  other  State 
to  all  beyond  the  point  claimed,  and  it  is  bound  by  the  admission. 
In  making  a  claim  of  right,  what  it  does  not  claim  as  of  right  it 
concedes  as  of  right. 

Next  in  importance  to  the  actual  claims  are  the  grounds  upon 
which  the  claims  are  advanced. 

As  has  been  already  shown,  the  Treaty  of  Munster  was  a 
treaty  between  Spain  and  the  Netherlands,  an<l  the  question  is  not 
what  interpretation  Great  Britain,  who  was  not  a  party  to  it,  puts 
upon  the  Treaty,  but  what  was  the  understanding  of  it  by  the 
parties  themselves.  The  British  case  is  at  pains  to  quote  Major 
Scott  (p.  28),  the  commander  of  the  force  that  captured  Pomeroon 
and  Essequibo  in  1665,  as  saying  that  by  his  conquest  English  pos- 
sessions were  extended   froni  Cayenne  to  the  Orinoco.     Apart  < 


DUTCH  BOUNDARY.  3 1 1 

from  Scott's  tendency  to  braggadocio,  he  is  a  discredited  authority; 
but  the  objection  to  his  testimony  h'es  deeper.  The  question  is  not 
what  a  British  officer  thought  should  have  been  the  Dutch  claim, 
but  what  w^as  the  Dutch  claim.  For  this  we  must  look  to  the 
Dutch  themselves,  and  we  must  look  to  what  they  said  and  did  in 
reference  to  it.  We  must  look  to  their  acts  as  well  as  to  their 
w^ords,  and  not  only  to  the  words  found  in  their  formal  inter- 
national communications,  but  still  more  to  the  words  of  their 
unrestrained  and  confidential  intercourse  and  correspondence, 
when  they  settled  down  for  that  long  period  of  a  ce.itury  and  a 
half  with  the  Spanish  as  their  neighbois  on  a  common  frontier. 
This  correspondence  we  possess,  and  it  is  in  evidence  in  this  case. 
It  is  a  correspondence  between  the  directing  head  of  this  quasi- 
sovereign  company  in  Holland  and  its  directing  head  in  the 
colony.  It  was  carried  on  with  that  unrestricted  freedom  with 
which  men  write  when  possessed  of  the  firm  belief  that  their 
letters  will  never  be  seen  except  by  those  to  whom  they  are 
addressed.  It  lays  before  us,  as  in  an  open  book,  the  thoughts, 
purposes,  claims  and  reasonings  of  the  sovereigns  of  Essequibo. 
After  reading  it  we  know  exactly  where  they  stood  on  the  ques- 
,  tion  of  boundary. 

The  first  position  taken  by  the  Dutch  West  India  Company  on 
the  question  of  American  titles  is  perhaps  the  most  important. 
It  is  containe<l  in  the  ^^  Deductie  "  formally  presented  by  the  Com- 
pany to  the  States -General  November  5,  1C60  (V.  C,  vol.  iii,  p. 
367),  and  already  referred  to. 

Their  words  are: 

" .  .  .  the  Dutch  nation  must  instead  be  preferred,  being  consid- 
ered the  same  as  in  earlier  times,  namely,  vassals  and  subjects  of  the  King 
of  Spain,  first  discoverer  and  founder  of  this  new  American  world,  who 
since,  at  the  conclusion  of  the  peace,  has  made  over  to  the  United  Nether- 
I  land  Provinces  all  his  right  and  title  to  such  countries  and  domains  as  by 
them  in  course  of  time  had  been  conquered  in  Europe,  America,  etc." 

Two  vital  points  are  established  by   this  document.     First,  it 

was  a  solemn  recognition   by   the   West   India  Company  of  the 


312  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

Spanish  title  to  the  King's  possessions  in  America  by  discovery  and 
"founding"  or  occupation.  Secondly,  it  was  a  solemn  recogni- 
tion that  what  the  Netherlands  had  taken  by  the  Treaty  of  Mun- 
ster,  and  what  the  King  of  Spain  had  made  over,  was  "all  his 
right  and  title  "  to  such  territories  as  the  Dutch  had  conquered  in 
America.  It  was  a  declaration  that  the  Treaty  of  Munster  was, 
not  as  the  British  Case  contends,  a  mere  mutual  acknowledge- 
ment of  title,  but  that  it  was  an  actual  cession  to  the  Netherlands 
of  the  title  of  the  King  of  Spain.  It  was  a  declaration  that  the 
West  India  Company  were  his  grantees,  and  it  was  an  absolute 
and  unqualified  admission  that  the  title  to  all  the  territory  not  so 
ceded  was  still  in  the  Spanish  Crown.  It  even  went  so  far  in  its 
reliance  upon  the  prior  Spanish  title  as  to  make  a  "  far-fetched  " 
appeal  to  it  as  a  ground  of  priority  over  the  English  in  North 
America,  in  that  the  Dutch  at  the  time  of  the  first  discovery  and 
occupation  were  themselves  the  vassals  of  the  King  of  Spain.  It 
established  the  fact  that  the  Dutch  could  not  extend  their  posses- 
sions beyond  those  ceded  by  the  Treaty  of  Munster,  except  by 
encroachment  upon  Spanish  territory,  and  that,  therefore,  the 
only  claim  which  they  could  ever  raise  to  such  territorial  exten- 
sions was  a  claim  of  adverse  possession. 

In  the  face  of  this  document  there  is  no  escape  from  the  posi- 
tion that  the  Netherlands,  as  represented  by  the  Dutch  West 
India  Company,  could  not  acquire  one  foot  of  territory,  and  that 
their  grantees  in  this  controversy  could  not  be  entitled  to  one  foot 
of  territory,  beyond  that  which  the  Dutch  acquired  in  1648,  ex- 
cept in  accordance  with  the  rules  governing  adverse  holding. 

This  declaration  alone  finally  disposes  of  the  ultimate  British 
contention  of  a  terra  nullius,  to  which  any  possession  prior  to  the 
Treaty  of  Arbitration,  however  recent,  may  give  title. 

In  1674,  as  already  stated,  the  old  Dutch  West  India  Company 
came  to  an  end  and  a  new  Company  was  created,  with  a 
new  charter,  by  which  the  operations  of  the  West  India  Com- 
pany, on  the  mainland  of  South  America,  were  confined  to  two. 


dutch'boundary.  313 

points,  namely,  Essequibo  and  Pomeroon.  Beyond  these  two 
points  the  Company  possessed  no  authority  under  the  charter. 

The  charter  of  1674  (B.  C.  I,  173)  therefore,  shows  conclusively 
that  any  territorial  claim  made  by  or  through  the  Dutch  West 
India  Company — and,  as  we  have  seen,  there  could  be  no  other 
Dutch  claim — by  reason  of  operations  wholly  or  in  part  subse- 
quent to  1674  must  be  confined  to  the  Essequibo  and  the  Pome- 
roon, because  from  this  date  down  to  the  final  termination  of  its 
existence,  in  1791,  the  West  India  Company  had,  under  the  terms 
of  the  act  creating  it,  no  power  to  operate  on  the  mainland  of 
South  America  beyond  these  points.  It  would,  therefore,  make 
no  difference  what  settlements  they  created,  or  what  control  they 
exercised,  other  than  at  these  points;  any  such  settlement  or  con- 
trol was  ultra  vires. 

Starting  with  these  two  formal  declarations— one  of  the  Dutch 
Government,  the  other  of  the  Dutch  Company;  one  defining  the 
points  at  which  alone  the  charter  was  operative,  the  other  recog- 
nizing the  prior  Spanish  title  by  discovery  and  occupation,  we 
find  for  a  hundred  years  after  the  Treaty  of  Munster  not  a 
whisper  of  territorial  extension,  much  less  of  territorial  claim, 
outside  of  the  chartered  limits.  Neither  in  the  mind  of  the 
Company  at  home  nor  in  that  of  the  Commandeur  in  the  colony 
ean  any  trace  of  such  a  proposition  be  discovered. 

On  the  contrary,  upon  the  only  occasion  during  this  period 
when  the  question  arose,  the  Dutch  Governor  admitted  the  terri- 
torial title  of  Spain  and  her  right  to  exercise  territorial  dominion 
in  the  now  disputed  territory,  and  the  Company  passed  over  the 
report  of  his  admission  without  comment.  This  was  the  occasion 
of  the  prohibition  of  the  Dutch  horse-trade  in  the  Cuyuni,  one  of 
the  most  important  episodes  in  the  history  of  the  Guiana  boundary 
question. 

Horses  and  other  live  stock  were  then,  as  for  more  than  a  cen- 
tury after,  the  principal  product  of  the  colony  of  Spanish  Guayana, 
and   its  principal  article  of   trade.     The  horse  trade   with   the 


314  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

Spanish  was  most  essential  to  the  Dutch  colonists,  because  at 
the  time  it  was  their  main,  if  not  their  only  reliance,  for  these 
animals  so  indispensable  in  the  production  of  sugar,  the  staple 
of  the  colony  of  Essequibo. 

The  trade  is  first  mentioned  in  1093  (V.  C.  IT,  63),  when  the 
Company  writes  to  the  Commandeur  that 

"  No  slight  advantage,  moreover,  has  been  brought  to  the  Company 
through  yon  by  your  having  found  out,  up  in  the  river  of  Cuyuni,  a  trade 
in  horses.'' 

The  locality  here  referred  to,  as  already  explained  (p.  ),  is  the 
Cuyuni  valley  above  the  falls. 

This  trade  is  spoken  of  from  time  to  time  during  the  following 
years — in  1697  {Id.,  65),  when  reference  is  made  to  the  price  *'  paid 
for  the  horses  bought  for  you  up  in  Cuyuni,^^  and  again  in  1701 
{Id.,  65),  at  which  latter  date  it  is  reported  that 

"The  trade  in  horses  up  in  Cuyuni  does  not  go  as  briskly  as  it  used 
to  do."' 

In  1702  the  reason  for  this  change  becomes  apparent.  War 
was  then  about  to  break  out  in  Europe,  and  the  Cuyuni  horse 
trade  suffered  in  consequence.  The  Spanish  authorities  prohib- 
ited the  trade,  as  they  were  entitled  to  do,  in  the  Cuyuni  basin, 
which  was  their  territory,  and  the  testimony  to  both 
these  facts,  namely,  the  territorial  rights  of  Spain  and 
the  exercise  of  these  rights  by  prohibiting  the  hoi-se  ti'ade  is  given 
by  the  Dutch  Governor  himself  (V.  C.  II,  68).  In  proposing 
to  the  Council  that  they  should  purchase  horses  out  of  a  Ehode 
Island  ship,  a  thing  forbidden  by  the  Company,  he  advises,  in 
view  of  the  urgent  necessity  of  the  colonists,  "  that  they  agree 
and  consent  hereto,  the  more  so  because  all  the  lands  where  we 
carry  on  our  horse-trade,  are  under  the  King  of  Spain";  and  the 
following  year,  1702,  he  reports  to  the  Company  the  death  of 
horses,  which  ''  truly  is  a  great  loss  to  the  Colony,  the  more  so 
since  the  Spaniards  will  no  longer  permit  any  trafificking  for 
horses  oti  their  territory  "  (V.  C.  II,  68). 


DUTCH  BOUNDARY.  3l5 

In  the  following  year  he  renews  his  complaint  and  puts  the 

cause  of  the  trouble  on  the  same  ground  as  before,   saying  that 

owing  to  the  present  war,  no  horses  are  to  be  had  above  here  as 

formerly,  inasmuch  as  those  Indians  think   they  stand  under  the 

'6rowns  of  Spain  and   France,  and  this  trade  is  thereby  crippled. 

pWe  cannot,  however,  get  on  without  these  and  attain  our  object, 

having  lately  lost  many  of  them  by  sickness  "  (V.  C.  IT,  69). 

What  is  the  significance  of  the  above  citations?  Here  are 
iree  statements  made  by  the  Grovernor  of  Essequibo,  in  three 
jparate  years,  which  assert  in  terms  as  plain  as  can  be  framed: 
First,  that  the  territory  of  the  Cuyuui  valley  is  the  territory  of 
the  Spaniards— not  merely  that  they  claim  it  to  be  their  territory, 
but  that  it  is  their  territory— that  there  is  no  question  about  it; 
and,  secondly,  that  upon  their  territory,  namely,  "up  in  Ouyuni," 
"above  here,"  the  Spanish  authorities  assert  their  territorial 
lights  and  prohibit  the  Dutch  from  engaging  in  a  trade  of  the 
utmost  importance  to  the  latter.  At  this  early  day,  in  the  open- 
ing years  of  the  eighteenth  century,  Spanish  control  was  suffi- 
ciently active  to  command  and  enforce  a  prohibition  of  trade  in 
this  wilderness. 

What  does  the  Dutch  Governor  do  when  his  colony  is  thus  cut 
off  from  an  article  so  essential  to  its  existence?  Does  he  pro- 
test to  the  Spanish  authorities?  Does  he  suggest  a  protest  to 
his  own  Government?  Does  he  claim  either  to  his  own  Govern- 
ment or  to  the  Spanish  that  this  is  Dutch  territory,  even  when 
he  knows  and  himself  reports  that  the  prohibition  is  based  on  a 
territorial  claim?  So  far  from  disputing  the  rights  of  Spain  in  the 
territory,  he  states  and  admits  them  as  an  established  fact,  and 
acquiesces  in  their  enforcement  on  this  ground.  The  action  of 
the  Dutch  Governor  is  more  than  an  admission  of  the  absence 
of  any  territorial  right  in  the  Netherlands;  it  is  an  express  recog- 
nition of  the  territorial  rights  of  Spain. 

A  recognition  of  Spanish  sovereignty  in  the  Coast  Territory 
was  made  in  a  letter  of  the  Dutch  Governor  in  1694,  where  he 


316  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

said  '*  Most  of  the  red  slaves  come  from  the  rivers  Barima  and 
Orinoco,  which  lies  [sic]  under  the  dominion  of  the  Spaniard  " — 
evidently  referring  to  the  region  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  two 
rivers. 

Not  for  half  a  century  afterwards  was  any  reference  made  to 
territorial  claims  or  territorial  extension  west  of  the  Essequibo 
and  the  Pomeroon. 

The  attitude  of  Spain  during  this  period  was  that  of  a  terri- 
torial sovereign  holding  possession  of  and  dominion  over  the  terri- 
tory in  question  up  to  the  Pomeroon  and  the  Essequibo.  When 
the  occasion  arose  it  did  not  hesitate  to  assert  its  dominion,  as  in 
the  Cuyuni  horse  trade  and  in  the  lower  Orinoco,  where  from 
time  to  time  Dutch  traders  were  arrested  for  a  violation  of  its 
regulations  (B.  C,  ). 

Upon  such  occasions  the  assertion  of  dominion  was  received 
with  entire  acquiescence.  The  sovereignty  of  Spain  was  not  only 
unquestioned  but  admitted. 

As  time  wore  on,  however,  the  more  farsighted  of  the  Spanish 
officials,  who  were  familiar  with  the  conditions  in  Guayana,  per- 
ceived that  a  time  might  come  when  the  Dutch,  under  the  lead  of 
an  aggressive  Governor,  would  attempt  to  encroach  upon  their 
territories. 

In  the  Memorias  of  the  Marquis  de  Torrenueva  on  the  Com- 
mission in  Seville  in  1743,  this  possibility  seems  to  have  been 
seriously  considered  for  the  first  time  (B.  C.  II,  41). 

Torrenueva  was  looking  broadly  at  the  condition  of  the  Span- 
ish colonies  in  America,  and  had  observed  the  importance  of 
checking  the  *' usurpations"  of  Brazil  in  South  America  and  of 
the  French  on  the  Mississippi,  and  he  remarked  that  equal  at- 
tention is  due  to  "the  object  with  which  the  Dutch  established 
themselves  to  the  windward  of  the  River  Orinoco."  Of  this  ob- 
ject, he  says:  "  And  this  could  be  no  other  than  to  get  nearer  to 
the  mouth  and  banks  of  the  said  river,  and  to  found  thereon 
plantations,  which    might  facilitate  their  traffic  with   the   New 


DUTCH  BOUNDARY.  31 T 

Kingdom  and  enable  them  to  penetrate  by  that  part  to  those 
places  and  districts  which  their  avarice  mighi  dictate  until  they 
made  themselves  masters  of  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco,  and  the 
nations  that  dwell  there,  in  a  vast  extent  of  260  leagues  from 
there  to  the  '  villa '  of  San  Juan  de  Los  Llanos." 

He  recommends  that  to  check  this  advance  the  mouth  of  the 
Oi'inoco  should  be  occupied  by  a  fort  and  a  town.  He  does  not 
refer  to  any  act  of  encroachment  that  has  already  taken  place, 
and  he  evidently  has  no  such  act  in  mind.  His  recommendation 
is  based  wholly  on  the  possibility  of  what  may  happen  in  the 
future,  but  he  suggests  an  inquiry  as  to  the  points  then  occupied 
by  the  Dutch  in  Guayana,  "to  consider  whether  they  were  in 
possession  of  those  territories  at  the  time  the  Treaty  of  Munster 
or  Westphalia  was  signed  in  1648,  taking  the  necessary  measures 
for  the  purpose,  in  connection  with  what  was  stipulated  and  is 
deduced  from  Article  V.  of  the  said  Treaty," — whether,  in  other 
words,  the  treaty  included  anything  on  the  Essequibo  beyond 
Kykoveral— a  suggestion  which  shows  that  in  Spain  the  basis  of 
determining  the  boundary  line  was  clearly  understood,  and  that  it 
i  was  suspected  that  the  early  Pomeroon  settlement  was  an  unwar- 
rantable intrusion. 

It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  this  Hrst  expression  of  apprehen- 
sion on  the  part  of  a  Spanish  statesmen  as  to  the  possibility  of 
Dutch  aggression  in  Guayana  was  coincident  with  the  appoint- 
ment as  Commandeur  of  the  colony  of  the  first  Dutch  official,  and 
it  may  be  said  the  only  Dutch  official,  to  conceive  a  policy  of 
territorial  acquisition  by  means  of  encroachment.  This  was 
Storm  van 's  Gravesande,  whose  administration  as  Commandeur 
and  Director-General  lasted  from  1742  to  1782,  and  who  is  the  sole 
author  of  the  Dutch  boundary  dispute.  The  history  of  that  dis- 
^pute  is  confined  to  Storm's  administration.  It  came  to  an  end 
\  with  his  retirement  from  office,  only  to  be  revived  in  the  next 

j, 

i  century  as  a  British  dispute  by  the  geographer  Schomburgk. 

Storm's  theory  on   the  question  of  boundaries   was   a  theory 


318  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

not  of  territorial  right,  but  of  territorial  encroachment.  Like 
Schomburgk,  he  believed  in  the  rectification  of  frontiers.  The 
Company  did  not  believe  in  his  plans,  and  refused  to  adopt  them. 
On  the  question  of  right,  they  decided  that  they  could  find  no 
ground  for  a  claim  to  territory  to  the  westward,  and  their  sug-- 
gestion  of  such  a  claim  in  their  First  Remonstrance  of  1759  was; 
based  upon  a  misapprehension  of  the  facts  upon  the  discovery  of 
which  it  was  quickly  withdrawn. 

I.    Interior  Territory. 

The  question  first  came  up  in  Storm's  mind  when  the  progress 
of  the  Spanish  missions  in  the  savannas  near  the  Cuyuni  grad- 
ually attracted  his  attention.  The  missions  had  been  at  work  in 
the  17th  century,  bat  the  founding  of  permanent  settlements  had 
begun  in  172i.  Before  1746,  when  he  wrote  his  first  letter  on  the 
subject,  several  of  these  settlements,  such  as  Cupapuy,  Alta 
Gracia,  Divina  Pastora,  with  its  immense  cattle  farm,  Cunuri, 
and  Tupuquen  had  been  established  on  the  rivers  tributary  to  the 
Cuyuni,  while  others  had  been  founded  in  adjoining  territory  on 
the  south  of  the  Orinoco.  From  that  time  on  Storm  makes  the 
boundary  the  subject  of  continual  letters  and  appeals  to  the  Com- 
pany. He  represents  that  he  is  unable  to  do.  anything  as  to  the 
Spanish  settlements,  because  he  does  not  know  at  what  point  to 
set  up  a  western  boundary. 

This  new  boundary  he  wishes  the  Company  to  fix.  The  ques- 
tion that  he  presents  is  not  a  question  of  title.  In  that  he  takes 
no  interest.  What  he  proposes  is  territorial  extension,  but  be 
wishes  definite  authority  from  the  Company  as  to  the  point  to 
which  he  shall  extend.  Finding  that  the  Spanish  settlements  are 
moving  eastward,  he  desires,  if  possible,  to  erect  a  barrier.  Ueing 
unable  to  extend  his  settlements,  the  next  best  thing  is  to  extend 
his  boundaries.  For  topographical  and  other  j'easons,  plantations 
cannot  be  created  beyond  the  actual  boundary  at  the  Cuyuni  falls. 
His  plan  is,  therefore,  to  set  up  a  territorial  claim;  but  he  cannot 


DUTCH  BOUNDARY.  $19 

set  up  sucli  a  claim  because  he  does  not  know  what  boundaries 
the  Company  will  set  for  it.  He  has  no  reason  for  supposing  that 
the  boundary  is  beyond  the  falls.  No  such  claim  had  even  been 
set  up  or  even  heard  of  before;  but  in  view  of  the  Spanish  ap- 
proach, he  is  satisfied  that  such  a  claim  is  desirable,  and  that  it 
must  and  will  be  made  by  the  Company.  Will  the  Company  tell 
him  what  it  is? 

That  the  above  correctly  states  the  position  of  the  Colonial 
authorities  is  shown  by  the  correspondence. 

In  July,  1746  (B.  C.  II,  45),  when  Storm  had  received  word 
that  the  Spaniards  had  established  a  new  mission  on  the  settle- 
ment, he  writes: 

"  I  feel  not  the  least  diffidence  us  to  dislodging  them  from  that  place  and 
capturing  those  forts,  but  such  a  step  being  one  of  great  consequence,  I 
dare  not  take  anything  upon  myself,  especially  us  the  proper  frontier-line 
there  is  unknown  to  me." 

On  December  7,  1746  (B.  C.  II,  46),  the  Commandeur  again 
writes  about  the  Spanish  fort  and  mission  up  in  the  Cuyuni,  and 
states  that  the  inhabitants  are  very  much  aggrieved  thereat; 

'•and  the  Carib  Indians  a  great  deal  more  so,  since  it  perfectly  closes  the 
Slave  Traffic  in  that  direction  from  which  alone  that  nation  derive  their 
livelihood.  They  have  also  expressed  a  desire  to  surprise  the  Mission  and 
level  it  to  the  ground,  which  I  not  witliout  trouble,  have  prevented,  be- 
cause they  belong  to  our  jurisdiction,  and  all  their  trade  being  carried  on  in 
the  Dutch  Colonies''  [that  is,  the  slave  trade],  "such  a  step  would  certainly 
be  revenged  upon  us  by  the  Spaniards.  It  is  very  perilous  for  this  Colony  to 
have  such  neighbours  so  close  by,  who  in  time  of  war  would  be  able  to  come 
and  visit  us  overland,  and  especially  to  make  fortifications  in  our  own  land 
is  in  breach  of  all  custom.  1  say  upon  our  own  land — I  cannot  lay  this 
down,  however,  with  full  certainty,  because  the  limits  west  of  this  river  are 
unknown  to  me." 

The  above   shows  clearly   that  in   this  Colony    of  Essequibo, 
.which  had  been  in  existence  for  a  century,  there  was  no  knowl- 
edge of  any  territory  belonging  to  the  colony  west  of  the  river. 
•  fVs  the  Commandeur  says,  "  The  limits  west  of  this  riyer  are  un- 


320  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

known  to  me.''  He  knows  that  the  plantations  are  on  the  river 
below  the  falls,  but  beyond  that  he  knows  nothing. 

One  significant  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  tbis  is  that  there 
could  have  been  no  settlements  west  of  the  Essequibo.  If  there 
had  been,  the  Commandeur  would  not  have  said  that  he  had  no 
knowledge  of  the  limits  west  of  the  liver. 

In  a  report  of  Storm,  dated  March  23,  1747  (B.  C,  II,  48),  is  a 
statement  that  "  the  Spaniards  had  made  a  journey  in  the  south- 
western direction  right  behind  us,  and  had  there  discovered  the 
origin  of  the  Rivers  Cuyuni  and  Massaruni,"  flowing  out  of  a  great 
lake,  and  that  their  intention  was  to  establish  a  permanent  settle- 
ment.    The  letter  concludes: 

*'  I  should  already  long  ago  have  removed  and  demolished  the  first  fort 
up  in  Cuyuni  {which  even  now  is  easy  of  accomplishment  on  my  part  through 
the  Caribs),  if  I  were  but  rightly  conscious  how  far  the  limits  of  your  Hon- 
ours' territories  extend,  both  on  the  eastern  and  northern  sides,  as  well  as 
south  and  westwards,  for  the  decision  whereof  not  the  least  help  is  ti  he  got 
in  this  office  here.  I  therefore  earnestly  request  your  Honours  to  be  pleased 
to  send  hither  the  necessary  information  concerning  that  matter,  Ijecause  an 
error  in  this  might  lead  to  quite  too  evil  consequences." 

It  is  significant  that  the  Commandeur,  especially  as  intelligent 
a  man  as  Storm,  could  get  no  information  whatever  on  the  bound- 
ary question  in  the  records  of  the  colony.  It  is  a  conclusive  proof 
that  the  Dutch  had  at  this  time  never  made  a  claim  or  estabhshed 
a  settlement  in  the  territory  now  in  question. 

The  Company  considered  the  question  presented  to  it,  and 
ordered  that  a  map  be  made  of  the  colony.  This  map  was  pre- 
pared and  sent  by  Storm  in  1750. 

It  shows  no  occupation  west  of  the  Essequibo,  except  the  posi 
at  Moruka. 

It  was  further  decided  by  the  Council  of  the  Company  (Sept. 
6,  1747)  that  all  the  Chambers  should  investigate  each  by  itsel 
*'  whether  it  can  be  discovered  how  far  the  limits  of  the  Cora 
pauy  in  Rio  EJssequibo  do  extend,"  and  report  to  their  respectivi 
Chambers   what  they  found  and  discovered.     The  Commandeui 


DUTCH  BOUNDARY.  321 

was  directed  that  "  if  in  the  meantime,  he  can  hy  indirect  means 
and  tvithont  himself  appearing  therein,  bring  it  about  that  the 
Spaniards  be  dislodged  from  the  forts  and  dwellings  which  they 
have,  as  he  maintains,  made  on  the  territor)-  of  the  Company 
and  be  prevented  from  further  extending  themselves  there,  he 
shall  be  permitted  to  carry  this  out  "  (B.  C.  II,  51). 

It  appears  from  this  reply  of  the  Company  that  they  were 
equally  ignorant  with  the  Commandeur  as  to  any  Dutch  territory 
west  of  the  Essequibo.  Nor  were  they  willing  that  he  should 
assert  any  claim  to  such  territory  as  against  the  Spanish,  for  they 
direct  him,  not  to  protest,  not  to  write  to  the  Spanish  authorities 
not  to  attack  the  intruder,  not  to  raise  the  question  himself  in 
any  form,  but  "if  he  can  by  indirect  means  and  without  himself 
appearing  therein,  bring  it  about  that  the  Spaniards  be  dislodged," 
he  may  do  so. 

Any  territorial  claim,  therefore,  made  by  Storm  after  1747  in 
reference  to  the  Spanish  missions,  is  made  not  only  without  au- 
thority, but  in  contravention  of  the  Company's  orders. 

On  December  2,  1748,  Storm  wrote  (B.  C.  II,  57)  that  "the 
Spaniards  were  beginning  to  gradually  approach  the  Upper 
Cuyuni,"  and  he  added:  "I  wish  however,  that,  if  it  were  pos- 
sible, I  might  know  the  proper  boundaries." 

A  curious  phase  of  the  dispute  which  Storm,  against  the  ex- 
press instructions  of  the  Company,  attempted  to  create  appears 
in  a  communication  to  the  Company  of  September  8,  1749  (B.  C. 
II,  63),  in  which  he  reported  a  correspondence  with  the  Governor 
of  Cumana.  As  we  have  only  Storm's  version  of  what  was  said, 
it  is  difficult  to  know  exactly  what  was  the  position  of  the  two 
parties.     Storm  says: 

"  Having  written  to  the  Governor  of  Oumani  that,  if  lie  persisted  in 
the  design  of  founding  a  Mission  in  the  River  Cuyuni,  I  should  be  obliged 
to  oppose  myself  there  against  effectually,  he  has  replied  to  me  that  such 
was  without  his  knowledge  (not  the  founding  of  the  new  [Mission],  but 
the  site),  and  that  it  should  not  be  progressed  with,  as  in  reality  nothing 
has  been  done." 


IL 


322  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

Storm  carefully  refrains  from  saying  that  he  asserted  any  ter- 
ritorial claim,  and  from  enclosing  either  his  letter  or  that  of  the 
Governor,  from  which  the  Company  might  have  heen  informed 
exactly  what  had  been  done.  No  trace  of  these  letters  has  been 
found.  Storm  represented  to  the  Company  that  the  Governor 
had  said  that  the  mission  "  should  not  be  progressed  with,"  but 
with  the  additional  statement  that  "  in  reality  nothing  has  been 
done."  This  would  seem  to  imply  that  all  the  Governor  had  said 
was  that  he  did  not  intend  to  build  such  a  mission,  and  that,  in 
fact,  Storm  had  been  misinformed.  Whether  he  took  any  gi'ound 
as  to  Spanish  rights  in  the  territory  Storm  fails  to  state,  and  as  far 
as  the  evidence  shows  the  correspondence  raised  no  such  question. 
The  letter,  however,  was  clearly  a  violation  of  the  Company's 
orders  given  two  years  before. 

Some  years  later,  that  is  to  say,  on  September  2,  1754  (B.  C. 
TI,  93),  Storm  had  occasion  to  refer  to  this  matter,  and  he  ad- 
mitted that  the  letter  was  contrary  to  the  "  command  that  I  must 
try  to  hinder  it,  but  without  appearing  therein."  He  said:  "I 
did  not  agree  in  the  reasons  which  have  actuated  your  Honours 
to  command  this  secretly;"  but  he  justified  himself  on  the  ground 
that  his  letter  had  been  written  before  the  instructions  were  re- 
ceived, in  which  statement  he  was  in  error.  He  added  that  he 
took  the  statements  of  the  Governor  as  "sterling  coin,"  but  that 
since  then,  instead  of  stopping  the  establishment  of  missions  or 
moving  them  back,  the  Spanish  authorities  had  founded  two 
new  settlements  at  a  point  lower  down  the  Cayuni  valley. 

This  outcome  of  Storm's  attempt  at  independent  action  shows 
that  he  never  made  any  claim  of  territorial  right.  He  never 
again  addressed  the  Spanish  authorities  on  the  subject  of  their 
settlements,  though  he  did  not  agree  in  the  reasons  that  had 
actuated  the  Company;  and  it  was  this  presumptuous  desire  of  a 
subordinate  to  impose  upon  the  Company  his  policy  of  territorial 
extension  that  was  at  the  root  of  the  whole  difficulty.  The  Com- 
pany did  not  believe  that  they  had  a  claim,  and  acting  on  that  be- 


DUTCH  BOUNDARY.  323 

lef  refused  to  assert  it.  Storm  tenaciously  adhered  to  his  pur- 
pose, however,  and  at  last  succeeded  in  getting  the  Company- 
involved  in  a  position  from  which  they  were  only  too  glad  sub- 
sequently to  withdraw. 

In  a  report  presented  personally  hy  Storm  at  his  visit  to  Hol- 
land in  1T50  (B.  C.  II,  67),  the  Commandeur  again  called  attention 
to  the  boundary,  and  said : 

"  It  is  necessary  that  the  limits  of  the  Company's  territory  should  be 
known,  in  order  successfully  to  oppose  the  continual  approach  of  the  neigh- 
bouring Spaniards,  who,  if  they  are  not  checked,  will  at  last  shut  us  in  on 
all  sides,  and  who,  under  pretext  of  establishing  their  missions,  are  forti- 
fying themselves  everywhere.  And  because  the  limits  are  unknojvn,  toe 
dare  not  openly  oppose  them,  as  might  very  easily  be  done  by  means  of  the 
Carib  nation,  their  sworn  enemies." 

This  is  at  least  the  fifth  time  that  the  question  of  boundaries 
had  been  brought  up  by  the  Company's  principal  agent  at  the 
colony  and  had  remained  unanswered  by  the  Company.  It  re- 
mained unanswered  because  the  Company  knew  that  none  of  this 
,  territory  had  ever  been  acquired  by  the  Netherlands,  while  their 
;  own  charter  limited  their  possessions  to  Essequibo  and  Pomeroon. 

By  report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Company  July  27,  1750 
(B.  C.  II,  68),  it  appears  that  the  question  of  the  boundary  had 
been  called  to  the  attention  of  "  His  Highness,"  but  apparently 
without  result. 

On  September  8,  1750,  the  Acting  Commandeur,  who  evi- 
dently had  not  grasped  Storm's  theory  of  rectification  of  frontiers, 
reported  to  the  Company  (B.  C.  II,  69),  in  reference  to  informa- 
'tion  that  the  Spanish  had  begun  to  construct  a  new  mission 
f Inclose  by  here,"  that  he  had  carefully  informed  himself  about  it, 
land  that  in  his  opinion  the  last  mission  which  was  being  con- 
structed "  is  directly  far  outside  the  concern  of  this  colony." 

Even  Storm's  visit  to  Holland  had  not  resulted  in  any  adoption 
of  his  boundary  theories,  but  he  had  no  intention  of  dropping  the 
subject.      Two  years  after  his  return,  having  as  yet  received  no 


i 


321  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

answer,  he  sent,  on  September  2,   1T54,  his  sixth  appeal  to  the 
Company  for  information  as  to  the  boundary  (B,  C.  II,  93): 

"I  have  the  honour  to  assure  your  Honours  that  I  shall  not  shimber  in 
this  matter,  but  shall  do  everything  in  my  power,  and  meanwhile  await 
your  Honours'  orders,  respecting  the  so  long  sought  definition  of  frontier,  so 
that  I  may  go  to  work  with  certainty.  (Has  not  this  been  regulated  by 
the  Treaty  of  Miinster?)" 

It  was  in  the  same  letter  that  he  referred  to  the  establishment 
of  two  new  missions,  notwithstanding  his  former  letter  to  the 
Governor,  and  to  the  fact  that  he  did  not  agree  with  the  Com- 
pany in  their  policy  of  non-interference. 

The  answer  of  the  Company  was  finally  given  January  G,  1755 
(B.  C.  II,  101).  It  was  not  an  answer  at  all.  After  nine  years  of 
investigation  and  discussion,  the  Company  acknowledge  their 
inability  to  state  any  specific  boundary,  and  fall  back  upon  the 
terms  of  the  charter.     They  say  (B.  C.  II,  102): 

''  We  would  we  were  able  to  give  you  an  exjict  and  precise  definition  of 
the  real  limits  of  the  river  of  Essequibo,  such  as  you  have  several  times  asked 
of  us;  but  we  greatly  doubt  whether  any  precise  and  accurate  definition  can 
anywhere  be  found,  save  and  except  the  general  limits  of  the  Company's 
territories  stated  in  the  preambles  of  the  respective  Charters  granted  to  the 
West  India  Company  at  various  times  by  the  States-General,  and  except  the 
description  thereof  which  is  found  in  the  respective  memorials  drawn  up, 
printed  and  published  when  the  well-known  differences  arose  concerning 
the  exclusive  navigation  of  the  inhabitants  of  Zeeland  to  those  parts, 
wherein  it  is  defined  as  follows:  '  That  region  lying  between  those  two 
well-known  great  rivers,  namely,  on  the  one  side,  that  far-stretching  and 
wide-spreading  river,  the  Amazon,  and  on  the  other  side,  the  great  and 
mightily-flowing  river,  the  Orinoco,  occupying  an  intermediate  space  of  ten 
degrees  of  north  latitude  from  the  Equator,  together  with  the  islands  ad- 
jacent thereto.'  For  neither  in  the  Treaty  of  Munster,  concerning  which 
you  gave  us  your  own  opinions,  nor  in  any  other  is  there  to  our  knowledge 
anything  to  be  found  about  this.  The  only  thing  we  have  discovered  up 
to  this  time  by  our  search  is  a  definite  boundary-line  made  in  the  West 
Indies  between  New  Netherland  and  New  England  in  the  year  1650,  but 
nothing  more  or  further. 


DUTCH   BOUNDARY.  325 

"  For  which  aforesaid  reasons,  it  is  therefore  our  opinion  that  one  ought 
to  proceed  with  all  circumspection  in  defining  the  Company's  territory, 
and  in  disputing  about  its  jurisdiction,  in  case  this  may  have  led  to  the  afore- 
said preparations  of  the  Spaniards,  and  that  it  would  be  best  in  all  befit- 
ting and  amicable  ways  to  guard  against  all  estrangements  and  hostile  acts 
arising  therefrom." 

The  above  letter  is  conclusive  evidence  that  in  1755  the  West 
India  Company  did  not  claim  any  part  of  the  territory  now  in 
dispute  above  the  falls  or  west  of  Pomeroon.  It  begins  by  saying: 
"  We  would  we  were  able  to  give  you  an  exact  and  precise  defini- 
tion of  the  real  limits,"  which  plainly  shows  that  they  were  un- 
able to  do  so;  and  it  adds  that  they  "greatly  doubt  whether  any 
precise  and  accurate  definition  can  anywhere  be  found,"  except- 
ing in  the  charters. 

In  this  statement  the  Company  were  correct;  and  if  they  had 
only  read  the  charter  of  1074,  they  would  at  once  have  found 
what  they  were  seeking,  namely,  the  limits  of  the  Dutch  claim. 
This  charter  gave  the  Company  two  places  on  the  continent  of 
America,  namely,  Essequibo  and  Pomeroon.  Whether  the  Dutch 
Government  had  a  title  that  enabled  it  to  make  this  grant  may  be 
a  question,  but  that  this  was  all  that  it  granted  is  beyond  question. 

The  Memorial  from  which  the  Zeeland  Chamber,  writing  this 
letter,  quotes  a  vague  and  grandiose  phrase  referring  to  a  "  re- 
gion "  lying  between  the  Amazon  and  the  Orinoco,  and  which  it 
cites  as  the  only  indication  of  a  boundary,  was  a  memorial  pre- 
pared by  itself  three  years  before,  in  1751,  in  a  dispute  betw^een 
the  different  Ciiambers  of  the  Company.  Such  a  statment  made 
by  one  or  the  other  of  the  contending  parties  in  the  Company,  in 
a  brief  in  support  of  rival  pretensions  could  indicate  nothing  as  to 
the  limits  of  chartered  rights;  still  less  could  it  be  used  in  an  in- 
ternational controversy  as  a  definition  of  specific  frontiers,  espe- 
!  daily  when  the  individuals  who  made  it  were  the  same  as  those 
who  were  now  referring  to  it  as  the  only  suggestion  they  could 
find   as  to  colonial  limits.     Such   phrases  could  certainly  never 


326  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

be  the  foundation  of  title  and  the  Company  evidently  did  not 
rely  upon  them  as  such. 

The  Company  sagely  observe  in  conclusion  that  the  only  thing 
which  their  search  has  discovered  so  far  is  a  boundary  line  made 
between  New  Netherland  and  New  England,  **  but  nothing  more 
or  further."  It  would  seem  that  there  could  not  well  be  anything 
further  from  the  question  then  under  consideration. 

Finally,  in  answer  to  Storm's  intimation  that  he  did  not  agree 
with  them  in  abstaining  from  territorial  claims,  they  made  the 
significant  statement: 

"  For  which  aforesaid  reasons,  it  is  therefore  our  opinion  that  one  ought 
to  proceed  circumspectly  in  defining  the  Company's  territory  and  in  dis- 
puting about  its  jurisdiction," 

and  that  it  would  be  best  to  guard  against  all  'entanglements. 
Not  only  were  the  Company  ignorant  of  any  claim  to  extended 
territories,  but  they  distinctly  refused  to  make  such  a  claim,  and 
most  solemnly  enjoined  upon  their  agent  in  the  colony  that  he 
should  do  nothing  to  raise  the  question,  an  injunction  that  was 
all  the  more  emphatic  in  view  of  the  letter  to  which  it  was  a 
reply. 

The  destruction  by  the  Spaniards  of  the  Dutch  post  at  Quive- 
Kuru  in  1758  led  the  Director  to  write  a  long  and  emphatic  pro- 
test to  the  Spanish  Governor  (B.  C.  II,  154). 

In  examining  this  letter,  it  must  be  remembered  that  Storm 
was  precluded  from  setting  up  any  territorial  claim,  first,  by  the 
want  of  any  foundation  for  such  a  claim,  as  was  repeatedly  ad- 
mitted in  his  letters,  and,  secondly,  by  the  express  prohibition  of 
the  Company.  All  such  claims  are,  therefore,  carefully  avoided 
in  the  letter.  The  Director-General  expresses  his  surprise  at  the 
attack,  at  the  imprisonment  of  the  occupants  of  the  post,  and  the 
destruction  of  the  house.  He  refers  to  it  as  an  offense  "  directly 
opposed  to  the  law  of  nations,  and  to  the  Treaties  of  Peace  and 
Alliance."  He  asks  how  such  violence  could  be  committed 
"  without  previously  making  a  complaint."     He  dwells  upon  it  as 


DUTCH   BOUNDARY.  327 

an  unfriendly  act  and  even  an  outrage.  But  he  says  no  word  to 
indicate  that  it  was  performed  on  Dutch  territory,  or  that  it  was 
in  breach  of  the  territorial  rights  of  Essequibo.  The  letter  is  in 
every  word  such  a  letter  as  might  have  been  written  had  the  acts 
complained  of  been  committed  on  the  other  side  of  the  Orinoco  in 
the  heart  of  Venezuelan  territory;  in  fact,  the  absence  of  any 
reference  to  a  violation  of  territorial  rights  as  the  gravamen  of  the 
offence  is  so  studied  and  marked  as  virtually  to  amount  to  a  dis- 
claimer. 

Storm's  letter  having  been  delivered  by  the  Commandant  of 
Guayana  to  Don  Nicolas  de  Castro,  Governor  of  Cumana,  under 
whose  administrative  supervision  the  province  of  Guayana  at  that 
time  was  placed,  the  latter  replied  to  it  in  terms  about  which 
there  was  no  ambiguity.  The  letter  was  as  follows  (B.  C.  II, 
169-70): 

"The  Commandant  of  Guayana  has  forwarded  to  me,  among  other 
documents,  a  letter  which  you  sent  him  claiming  the  two  Dutch  prisoners, 
a  negro  slave,  and  a  half-breed  woman  with  her  children,  whom  the  guard 
dispatched  from  that  fort  seized  in  an  island  of  the  Kiver  Ouyuni,  estab- 
lished there  in  a  house,  and  carrying  on  the  unjust  traffic  of  slavery  among 
the  Indians,  in  the  dominions  of  the  King  my  Sovereign.  As  this  same 
River  Cuyuni  and  all  its  territory  is  included  in  those  dominions,  it  is 
incredible  that  their  High  Mightinesses  the  States-General  should  have 
authorized  you  to  penetrate  into  those  dominions,  and  still  less  to  carry  on 
a  traffic  in  the  persons  of  the  Indians  belonging  to  the  settlements  and 
territories  of  the  Spaniards.  I  therefore  consider  myself  justified  in  approv- 
ing the  conduct  of  this  expedition." 

Storm  chose  to  consider  himself  affronted  by  De  Castro's  letter, 
because  it  was  addressed  "  To  the  Dutch  Commandant  residing  in 
Essequibo,"  and  he  conceived  the  idea  of  having  the  letter 
answered  by  the  officer  who  commanded  his  little  garrison.  The 
answer  begins  (B.  C.  II,  173): 

*'  I  duly  received  the  letter  which  was  written  to  me  by  Mr.  Don 
Nicolas  de  Castro,  whose  person  or  quality  I  do  not  have  the  honour  to 
know,  in  answer  to  the  letter  which  our  Governor  had  written  to  you." 


328  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

This  arrangement  served  two  purposes:  it  enabled  Storm  to 
resent  the  supposed  affront  to  himself,  and  also  to  evade  the  pro- 
hibition of  the  Company  as  to  a  territorial  claim,  by  making  it  in 
the  name  of  an  irresponsible  subordinate. 

In  this  letter  the  act  of  the  Spaniards  is  characterized  as  a 
"  violation  and  insult  done  to  the  territory  of  his  Sovereigns."  It 
adds  that 

"  Since  it  seems  to  him,  according  to  the  letter  in  question,  that  in 
Guayana  and  at  Cnman^  there  is  ignorance  of  the  boundaries  of  the  terri- 
tory of  His  Catholic  Majesty  and  those  of  the  States-General  according  to 
the  Treaties  at  present  subsisting,  he  has  ordered  me  to  send  you  the  in- 
closed map,  on  which  you  will  be  able  to  see  them  very  distinctly." 

The  only  comment  to  be  made  on  this  statement  is  that  the 
ignorance  of  the  Spaniards  in  reference  to  the  boundary,  however 
great  it  might  be,  could  not  exceed  that  of  the  Dutch  them- 
selves, as  plainly  admitted  by  the  letters  both  of  the  Director- 
General  and  of  the  Company. 

This  letter  was  sent  back  unopened  by  the  Spanish  Command- 
ant, the  latter  stating  that  he  was  "  forbidden  to  enter  into  any 
correspondence  concerning  the  matter  of  Cuyuni "  (B.  C.  II,  175). 

Storm  reported  the  facts  in  two  letters,  one  of  September  U, 
1Y58  (V.  C.  II,  125),  the  other  undated,  but  written  in  the  follow- 
ing year,  1T59  {Id.,  129). 

In  the  first  of  these  letters  he  merely  said  that  the  claim  that 
the  post  was  on  Spanish  ground  was  *' utterly  and  indisputably 
untrue,"  and  referred  to  D'Anville's  map  as  authority  for  the 
boundaries. 

In  his  second  letter  he  was  more  specific.     He  said : 

"There  not  being  the  slightest  difficulty  or  doubt  concerning  the 
ownership  of  this  branch*  of  Essequibo,  most  undoubtedly  belonging,  as  it 
does,  to  tlie  West  India  Company,  this  unexpected  and  unheard  of  act  is  a 
violation  of  all  existing  Treaties." 

The  position  taken  in  the  above  letters  must  be  looked  at  in 

the  light  of  Storm's  previous  correspondence,  which  abundantly 

*  Erroneously  traDilHted  portion  in  B.  C,  II,  172. 


DUTCH   BOUNDARY.  329 

shows  that  he  was  ignorant  of  any  Dutch  claim  of  right  west  of 
the  Essequibo  River  and  of  any  ground  for  such  a  claim.  We 
have  six  letters,  from  1746  to  1754,  stating  that  he  knew  no 
boundaries.  He  suggests,  however,  that  he  has  found  them  in 
D'Anville's  map.  Now,  D'Anville's  map  (Br.  Atlas,  p.  16)  is  a 
map  of  the  whole  of  South  America,  and  a  glance  will  show  that 
the  boundary  therein  traced  is  an  arbitrary  line,  representing  the 
mere  speculation  of  the  geographers.  It  was  enough  for  Storm, 
however,  and  he  adopted  it  and  passed  it  on  to  the  Company. 

In  his  second  letter  he  suggests  the  theory  that  the  river 
belongs  to  the  Company  because  it  is  a  branch  of  the  Essequibo. 
This  which  amounted  to  saying  that  because  the  Dutch  were  set- 
tled for  a  dozen  miles  along  the  Essequibo,  their  occupation  was 
constructively  extended  to  include  an  immense  lateral  territory, 
300  miles  in  width,  to  within  20  miles  of  the  banks  of  the  Orinoco, 
a  territory  which  at  that  moment  was  occupied  by  numerous 
Spanish  settlements  controlled  and  governed  by  the  King  of  Spain; 
a  territory,  moreover,  whose  natural  outlet  and  natural  entrance 
were  on  the  Spanish  or  western  side  and  which  the  Dutch  were 
precluded  from  settling,  according  to  their  own  statement,  by 
natural  barriers  (p.  ).  So  far  as  Storm  is  concerned,  all  this  was 
mere  matter  of  suggestion.  Up  to  this  time  he  had  repeatedly 
affirmed  his  ignorance  of  any  ground  of  right,  and  had  declared 

[,that  there  was  nothing  in  his  possession  upon  which  to  base  a 
territorial  claim.  His  letters  amount  to  a  denial  of  any  ground 
of  claim.  He  does  not  base  such  a  claim  upon  anything  now. 
He  merely  suggests  that  a  French  geographer  has  laid  down  a 
boundary,  and  that  the  branches  of  the  Essequibo  are  indisputably 

;  I  the  Company's  territory.  The  methods  of  "rectifying  frontiers" 
are  alike  in  all  ages.  Substitute  "  Schomburgk  "  for  "  D'Anville  " 
and  the  sentence  describes  the  process  of  reasoning  which  has 
led  to  the  present  "extreme  British  claim." 

The  West  India  Company  were  far  from  being  satisfied.  They 
wanted    something    as  a  ground    of    right,  which    as    yet   the 


330  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

Director- General  had  not  furnished  them.     They  therefore  replied 

on  May  31,  1Y59,  asking  (B.  C.  II.,  174)— 

"  what  grounds  you  might  be  able  to  give  us  to  further  support  our  right 
to  the  possession  of  the  aforesaid  Post — perhaps  a  declaration  by  the  oldest 
inhabitants  of  the  Colony  could  in  this  connection  be  handed  in,  which 
might  be  of  service." 

The  reply  of  the  Director-General  to  the  Company's  inquiry  as 
to  what  he  knew  about  the  boundary  shows,  as  do  his  previous 
letters,  that  he  knew  nothing.  He  justified  his  claim  by  the 
statement  (Report  of  September  1,  1Y59,  B.  C.  II,  ISO): 

*'  That  Cuyuni  being  one  of  the  three  arras  which  constitute  this  river, 
and  your  Lordships  having  had  for  very  many  years  the  coffee  and  indigo 
plantation  there,  also  that  the  mining  master,  with  his  men,  having  worked 
on  the  Blue  Mountain  in  that  river  without  the  least  opposition,  the  pos- 
session of  that  river,  as  far,  too,  as  this  side  of  the  Wayne,  which  is  pre- 
tended to  be  the  boundary  line  (although  I  think  the  latter  ought  to  be  ex- 
tended as  far  as  Barima),  cannot  be  questioned  in  the  least  possible  way, 
and  your  Lordships'  right  of  ownership  is  indisputable,  and  beyond  all 
doubt." 

In  reply  to  the  Company's  inquiry  as  to  the  location  of  the 
post,  he  stated  that  it  "  was  situated  about  fifteen  hours  above  the 
place  where  Cuyuni  unites  with  Massaruni,"  and  he  adds: 

"  But  this  has  little  to  do  with  the  matter,  even  if  the  Post  had  been 
situated  fifty  hours  further  up,  it  was  a  matter  which  did  not  concern  the 
Spaniards,  and  in  the  same  way  as  they  are  masters  upon  their  territory  to 
do  what  pleases  them,  so  your  Lordships  are  also  masters  upon  yours." 

Here  we  get  the  real  underlying  idea  of  Sborm's  territorial 
claims.  He  is  not  concerning  himself  with  any  question  of  right 
or  of  title.  The  questions  which  he  is  considering  are  questions 
of  expediency  or  convenience.  His  argument  is:  "  The  territory 
is  ours  because  we  want  it."  He  says  that  the  Waini  is  pretended 
to  be  the  boundary  line  (by  whom  he  does  not  say),  but  that  he 
thinks  the  boundary  "  ought  to  be  extended  "  as  far  as  the  Barima. 
It  is  an  extension  of  boundaries  on  grounds  of  expediency  to  which 
Storm  is  looking,  not  to  a  definition  of  boundaries  on  grounds  of 
right.    The  fact  that  the  Dutch  had  plantations  on  the  12-mile5 


DUTCH  BOUNDARY.  331 

stretch  of  the  Cuyuni  below  the  falls,  and  that  for  a  few  months 
a  Dutchman  had  prospected  for  minerals  in  the  Blue  Mountains, 
near  the  same  falls,  did  not  constitute  possession  of  a  territory 
three  hundred  miles  to  the  westward.  Storm's  real  contention  is 
not  that  the  post  was  placed  on  Dutch  territory,  but  that  the 
establishment  of  the  post  made  it  Dutch  territory.  He  says  it 
was  "fifteen  hours"  from  Essequibo,  but  if  it  had  been  fifty 
hours  it  would  have  made  no  difference. 

Before  the  receipt  of  this  letter,  and  while  its  own  inquiry  for 
further  information  remained  unanswered,  the  Company  made 
their  First  Remonstrance  (V.  C.  II,  133),  that  of  1759,  to  the  States- 
General,  and  the  States-General,  through  their  Ambassador  at 
Madrid,  presented  it  to  the  Spanish  Government  (V.  C.  II,  135). 
The  extent  of  the  claim  advanced  in  this  Remonstrance  is  to  the 
Essequibo  and  to  "  all  the  branches  and  tributaries  which  flow 
into  it,  and  especiall}''  of  the  northernmost  arm  of  that  river, 
named  Cuyuni."  This  the  Company,  in  singular  ignorance  of 
the  facts  of  history,  bases  on  the  ground  of  immemorial 
possession,  though  just  before  they  had  been  searching  for 
an  old  inhabitant  to  prove  the  possession.  The  Remonstrance 
is  exceedingly  cautious  in  its  terms.  It  uses  the  most  guarded 
and  hesitating  language.  It  nowhere  states  that  the  terri- 
tory referred  to,  which  includes  the  whole  drainage  basin 
of  the  Cuyuni,  was  Dutch  territory  or  territory  belonging 
to  the  Company.  It  only  says  that  it  has  been  "  possessed  from 
time  immemorial "  and  that  they  '*  in  virtue  of  that  possession, 
have  always  considered  the  said  river  of  Cuyuni  as  a  domain 
of  this  State." 

This  is  not  a  claim,  but  an  exceedingly  deferential  expression 
of  opinion. 

Referring  to  the  attack  on  the  post,  it  complains  of  the  out- 
rage, appends  De  Castro's  letter  asserting  that  the  post  was  "  in 
the  dominions  of  the  King  my  Sovereign"  (V.  C.  II,  324) — a 
statement,  it  may  be  remarked,  very  different  from  that  which 


332  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

says  that  the  Company  having  been  in  possession  of  the  Cuyuni 
from  time  immemorial,  "have  alv^^ays  considered  said  river  of 
Cuyuni  as  a  domain  of  this  State,"— and  it  asks  that  reparation 
may  be  made  for  the  attack;  that  the  Company  may  be  reinstated 
in  the  quiet  possession  of  the  post,  and  that  a  proper  dehmitation 
between  the  Colony  of  Essequibo  and  the  River  Orinoco  may  be 
laid  down  by  authority,  so  as  to  prevent  any  future  dispute. 

The  same  position  is  taken  by  the  Ambassador  in  his  written 
protest.     He  said  (V.  C.  II,  135): 

**  His  masters  have  been  from  time  immemorial  in  uodisturbed  posses- 
sion of  the  River  Essequibo,  and  all  the  little  rivers  which  flow  into  it,  and 
especially  of  the  right  arm  of  the  said  river,  which  flows  northwards,  and 
is  called  the  Cuyuni ;  that,  in  virtue  of  the  said  possession,  his  masters 
have  for  a  very  long  time  considered  the  whole  of  the  said  river  as  a  domain 
belonging  to  them," 

and  that  they  have  consequently  erected  a  post,  etc. 

Here,  again,  the  suggestion  is  not  put  forward  in  language 
which  suggests  a  claim.  It  is  rather  an  invitation  to  a  discussion, 
especially  in  connection  with  the  proposal  for  a  delimitation. 
Spain,  however,  refused  to  discuss  it.  No  answer  was  made  to 
the  Remonstrance,  as  it  required  none.  The  letter  of  the 
Governor  of  Cumana  declared  that  the  Spanish  dominion 
included  the  whole  Cuyuni  and  its  territory.  This  letter 
was  expressly  referred  to  in  the  communication  of  the  Dutch 
Ambassador  to  the  Spanish  Government,  and  the  latter  were 
therefore  apprised  of  the  fact  that  the  position  taken  by  the 
Spanish  authorities  in  Guayana  had  been  communicated  to  the 
States -General.     Spain  had  nothing  to  add  to  that  statement. 

Under  these  circumstances,  the  statement  in  the  British  Case 
(p.  54),  upon  which  so  much  stress  is  laid,  that  "this  claim  the 
Spanish  Government  never  denied  and  never  rebutted,"  is  evi- 
dently an  error,  and  the  statement  in  the  Counter-Case  (p.  102) 
that  of  "'assertion  of  sovereign  rights'  ...  by  Spain  in 
the  territory  now  in  dispute  there  was  none,"  is  equally  an  error. 


1 


DUTCH  BOUNDARY. 


333 


When  the  Dutch  Government,  in  making  its  complaint,  an- 
nexed to  the  complaint  a  complete  answer  from  one  of  the  highest 
officers  in  the  Spanish -American  colonies,  nothing  remained  to  be 
done  by  Spain.  The  Dutch  had  had  their  answer.  They  had  had 
I  their  denial.  Nothing  more  was  necessary  unless  Spain  proposed 
to  disavow  the  declarations  of  the  Governor  of  Cumana,  which  it 
certainly  had  no  intention  of  doing. 

Moreover,  the  claim  was  not  pressed.     It  was  never  heard  of 
jain.     In  its  original  terms  it  had  been  not  so  much  a  claim  as 
'the  expression,  in  very  doubtful  and  halting  terms,  of  an  opinion 
^on  the  part  of  the  Company  and  of  the  States-General.     The  only 
jround  of  the  opinion,  namely,  immemorial  possession,  was  so 
larvelously  wide  of  the  truth  as  to  the  Cuyuni  valley  as  hardly 
be  open  to  discussion,  and  the  claim,  if  claim  it  was,  was  pres- 
mtly  contradicted  and  withdrawn. 

The  Second  Remonstrance  was  presented  to  the  Spanish  Gov- 
ernment in  1769  (B.  C.  IV,  29),  when  complaint  was  made  of  a 
mmber  of  acts  on  the  part  of  Spain,  which  will  be  considered 
iter.    It  is  desired  here  only  to  trace  the  relation  between  the 
two  Remonstrances. 

Nothing  had  been  done  at  this  time  about  the  Remonstrance  of 
1759.     Spain  had  paid  no  heed  to  it.     There  is  no  suggestion  that 
ft  had  ever  been  made  the  subject  even  of  a  conversation  between 
fhe  Dutch  Ambassador  and  the  Spanish  Ministers.     This  in  itself 
fs  enough,  according  to  diplomatic  usage,  to  show  that  the  Re- 
lonstrance  was  not  regarded  by  its  makers  as  a  serious  claim. 
But  the  Second  Remonstrance  goes  further  than  mere  silence 
to  the  prior  claim.     It  is  an  entire  waiver  and  abandonment  of 
the  old  cause  of  complaint.     It  does  not  pass  it  by  in  silence.     It 
jfers  to  it,  but  as  a  thing  long  since  past  and  done  with.     Speak- 
ing of  the  new  causes  of  complaint,   it  says  that  "  the  Remon- 
jtrants,  especially  after  what  had   happened  in  1759,  had   been 
Jxtremely  surprised  to  learn  by  a   letter"   from  the   Director- 
reneral  certain  facts,  etc. 


334  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

Certainly,  after  this  reference,  nothing  more  needed  to  be  said 
by  Spain  about  "  what  had  happened  in  1759."  The  only  remain- 
ing importance  of  the  occurrences  of  1Y59  was  that  they  caused 
additional  surprise  in  the  Dutch  at  learning  of  something  that  had 
happened  ten  years  later. 

But  the  Second  Remonstrance  went  further  than  this.  It  took 
up  the  territorial  question.  It  alluded  to  '*the  establishment  of 
two  Spanish  missions,  occupied  by  a  strong  force,  one  not  far 
above  the  Company's  said  Post  in  Cuyuni  (apparently,  however, 
on  Spanish  territory),  and  the  other  a  little  higher  up  on  a  creek 
which  flows  into  the  aforesaid  Cuyuni  River." 

This  is  all  that  is  said  about  these  missions.  No  complaint  is 
made  of  them.  No  suggestion  is  made  that  they  are  displeasing 
to  the  Dutch  Government.  They  constitute  a  mere  flourish  in  the 
document. 

The  extraordinary  fact  about  the  allusion,  however,  is:  first, 
that  it  is  made  at  all,  as  it  is  not  made  with  a  view  to  protest; 
and,  secondly,  that  it  is  coupled  with  the  statement  that  the 
lowest  of  the  missions  is  "  apparently,  however,  on  Spanish  terri- 
tory." 

This  is  a  complete  reversal  of  the  previous  position  of  the  Com- 
pany. The  claim,  if  it  was  a  claim,  in  the  Remonstrance  of  1759 
was  a  claim  to  the  tributaries  of  the  Essequibo  and  especially  the 
river  of  Cuyuni.  Here  it  is  distinctly  admitted,  and  the  admission 
is  entirely  gratuitous,  that  a  point  not  far  above  the  Company's 
post  in  Cuyuni  is  in  Spanish  territory,  and  that  the  establishment 
by  the  Spanish  Government  of  a  settlement  there,  as  well  as  at  a 
higher  point  on  a  tributary  of  the  Cuyuni,  is  not  a  subject  for 
complaint.  There  was  no  purpose  in  saying  that  the  mission  was 
on  Spanish  territory  except  to  withdraw  the  claim  which  they 
had  previously  advanced  to  the  Cuyuni.  This  claim  they  in 
terms  abandoned.  All  that  was  left  was  a  cloudy  statement 
possibly  implying  a  Dutch  claim  to  the  post,  and  to  the  territory 
in  the  rear  of  it.     As  this  was  the  lowest  post,  and   was  but  a 


DUTCH  BOUNDARY.  335 

short  distance  above  the  falls  of  Cuyuni,  it  conceded  substantially- 
all  that  had  been  made  the  subject  of  the  First  Remonstrance. 
As  is  evident  from  the  tone  of  the  First  Remonstrance,  the 
Company,  after  sending  it,  were  very  far  from  being  satisfied 
with  the  position  in  which  their  Director-General  had  involved 
them,  and  the  remaining  correspondence  shows  how  they  came  to 
abandon  their  position. 
Wk  On  December  3,  1759  (B.  C.  11,  181),  five  months  after  the  Re- 
monstrance had  been  sent,  they  for  the  second  time  wrote  to  the 
Director,  saying: 

''We  still  request  yon  to  lay  before  us  everything  that  might  in  any 
way  be  of  service  in  proof  of  our  right  of  ownership  to,  or  possession  of,  the 
aforesaid  river  [CuyuniJ." 

On  May  2,  1760  (B.  C.  II,  184),  the  Director  replied: 

"  I  have  very  little  to  add  to  what  I  have  already  had  the  honour  of  sub- 
mitting to  your  Lordships  in  several  of  my  despatches  [on  the  boundary 
question]  and,  although  I  am  aware,  as  your  Lordships  are  pleased  to  in- 
form me,  that  no  Treaties  have  been  made  which  decided  that  the  dividing 
boundary  in  South  America  should  run  inland  in  a  direct  line  from  the 
seacoast,  .  .  .  the  rivers  themselves,  which  have  been  in  the  posses- 
I  sion  of  your  Lordships  for  such  a  large  number  of  years,  and  have  been 
inhabited  by  subjects  of  the  State  without  any  or  the  least  opposition  on 
the  part  of  the  Spanish,  are  most  certainly  the  property  of  your  Lord- 
ships. " 

Storm's  reiteration  of  this  claim,  when  the  Company  so  evi- 
dently questioned  it,   and  asked  for  proofs  of  title,  again  shows 
that  he  was  only  suggesting  to  the  Company  the  point  where  they 
.ought  to  make  their  frontiers.      Historical  facts,  questionsof  dis- 
jcovery,  title,  occupation,  political  control,  had  no  interest  for  him. 
iEven  the  Company's  modest  suggestion  that  he  should  furnish 
loclarations  of  the  oldest  inhabitants  was  treated  with  neglect. 
The  only  argument  he  could  advance  was  that  the  Cuyuni  was  a 
branch  of  the  Essequibo,  and  was  indisputably  company  territory. 
This  is  the  explanation  of  his  persistent  nagging  of  the  Company 
about  the  Spanish  missions,  in  which  the  Company  never  took 


336  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

any  interest,  and  which,  in  Storm's  absence,  the  Acting  Com- 
mandeur,  who  evidently  did  not  share  Storm's  theory  of  the  rec- 
tification of  territorial  frontiers,  intimated  were  matters  with 
which  the  colony  of  Essequibo  had  nothing  to  do. 

In  1764  Storm  claimed  he  transmitted  to  the  Company  (B.  (  . 
Ill,  106)  "a  brief  treatise  concerning  the  Honourable  Company's 
outposts."  In  this  he  mentioned  (p.  109)  the  post  which  "was 
on  the  river  of  Cuyuni,"  and  described  its  destruction  by  "the 
Spaniards  of  Guayana."    He  added  (p.  110), 

"  that  [the  bend  of]  this  river  is  a  tract  of  land  along  which  the  Spaniarilg 
sprpad  themselves  from  year  to  year,  and  gradnally  come  closer  by  means 
of  their  missions,  the  small  parties  sent  out  by  them  coming  close  to  the 
place  where  the  Honourable  Company's  indigo  plantation  stood"  [below  the 
loAvest  fall],  "  and  being  certain  to  try  and  establish  themselves  if  they  are 
not  stopped  in  time." 

Later  in  the  same  letter  he  said  (pp.  111-12): 

"  What  can  we  expect  from  the  numerous  arrivals  of  settlers  in  Cayenne 
and  the  removal  of  Spanish  people  and  plantations  in  Guayana  so  much 
nearer  to  our  boundaries  f  " 

Here  is  the  Director-General  of  Essequibo,  as  late  as  1764,  re- 
ferring to  the  movements  of  the  Spaniards  to  the  falls  of  the 
Cuyuni  as  a  removal  of  Spanish  people  and  plantations  "  so  much 
nearer  to  our  boundaries."  There  is  no  claim  here  that  the  Span- 
iards are  encroaching  upon  Dutch  territory.  The  claim  made  by 
Storm  and  the  point  which  was  really  at  the  bottom  of  all  his 
complaints  and  asseverations  was  that  it  was  dangerous  to  havfe^ 
the  Spaniards  establishing  themselves  near  the  Dutch  colony  and 
occupying  the  Cuyuni.  His  last  statement  is  an  unconscious  ad- 
mission, that,  in  his  opinion,  the  boundary  really  was  at  the  falls 
of  the  Cuyuni,  twelve  miles  from  its  mouth.  The  letter  showfe 
above  all  how  preposterous  was  the  claim  of  immemorial  possessioj^ 
of  the  river. 

In  view  of  this  last  admission,  it  is  no  wonder  that  the  Conl- 
pany  in  1769  receded  entirely  from  the  territorial  suggestions  « 
1759.    The  Second  Remonstrance,  at  the  later  date,  is  the  last  re^ 


DUTCH   BOUNDARY.  337 

erence  ever  made  by  the  Dutch  authorities  to  a  boundary  in  the 
interior  west  of  the  falls  of  the  Cuyuni.  As  with  the  earlier  Re- 
monstrance, nothing  further  was  heard  of  it. 

II.  Coast  Territory. 

As  in  the  interior,  so  in  the  coast  territory  the  question  of 
boundaries  was  first  actively  pressed  by  Storm.  Beekman,  in  1683, 
had  suggested  to  the  Company  to  "  take  possession  "  of  the 
Barima,  but  the  Company  had  not  approved  the  suggestion. 
Evidently  at  this  time  there  was  no  immemorial  or  other  posses- 
sion of  Barima  by  the  Dutch.  Except  this  proposition,  which  was 
a  virtual  disclaimer,  and  the  allusion  ah'eady  cited  (p.  ),  in 

I  1894,  to  the  region  "  which  lies  under  the  dominion  of  the  Spaniard, 

,  nothing  more  is  heard  of  territorial  rights  in  Barima  until  Storm's 

I  administration." 

Storm  applied  his  ideas  on  the  subject  of  boundaries.  Put  in 
limitation  to  both  the  interior  and  the  coast  districts,  but  only 

:|  in  his  correspondence  with  the  Company.      He  thus  alludes  to  the 
latter  (V.  C.  II,  101)  (1748): 

"  x\ccording  to  the  tulk  of  the  old  peoi)le  iind  of  the  Indians,  this  juris- 

•  liction  shonld  begin  to  the  east  at  the  creek  Abary  and  extend  westward 
as  far  as  the  river  Barima,  where  in  old  times  a  post  existed  ;  hut  this  talk 

;  (jices  not  the  slightest  certainty'^ 

This  is  the  first  and  original  suggestion  put  forth  by  the  Coni- 
numdeurof  Essequibo  as  the  boundaiy  of  the  colony  on  the  coast. 
It  originated  in  talk  with  "  old  people  and  Indians."  Stortn  says 
I  liat  according  to  "this  talk"  the  jurisdiction  should  extend  as 
far  as  the  Barima.  He  does  not  sa}  that  it  does  extend;  in  fact, 
his  words  imply  the  contrary.  He  states  that  according  to  "  this 
talk"  in  old  times  a  post  existed  there,  but  we  know,  from  the 

•  locuments  that  we  have  and  which  he  had  not,  that  this  talk  was 
unfounded.     But  he  says  himself  that  "this  talk  gives  not  the 

lightest  certainty."     Doubtless,  it  was  for  this   reason  that  he 
omitted  to  obtain  depositions  composed  of  "  this  talk  "  for  the 


!■ 


338  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

Company  when  they  asked  for  them  in  reference  to  Cuyuni.  It 
is  apparent  that  in  174:8  Storm  was  entirely  ignorant  as  to  any 
boundaries  or  possessions  of  the  Company  in  the  coast  territory 
beyond  Moruca. 

The  next  year  an  incident  happened  which  is  only  touched 
upon  in  the  Dutch  correspondence,  the  loss  of  the  "  Baskens- 
burg."  This  was  a  Dutch  ship  wrecked  on  the  coast,  between 
the  Moruka  and  the  Waini.  In  a  letter  of  September  8,  1749 
(V,  C.  II,  105),  Storm  referred  to  his  having  taken  possession  of 
the  ship,  and  said  that  he  sent  the  question  over  and  "  took  advice 
on  it  from  the  foremost  jurists  in  the  province  of  Holland,"  and 
that  he  was  astonished  to  find  out  from  the  opinion  that  was 
rendered  that  "  I  had  for  their  sake  risked  ray  honor,  reputation 
and  property,  inasmuch  as  this  ship  had  been  stranded  at  Pechy, 
and  therefore  on  the  territory  of  Spain,  and  I  had  had  no  right  to 
touch  it.  Of  this  I  had  absolutely  no  thought,  and  it  shall  make 
me  in  the  future  somewhat  more  prudent." 

The  Bouchenroeder  map  (British  Atlas,  Map  35)  shows  the  Gulf 
of  Pechy  on  the  sea-coast  between  the  Waini  and  Moruka,  and 
therefore  far  within  the  line  to  which  Storm  wished  to  '*  extend 
the  boundary." 

This  opinion  of  "the  foremost  jurists  in  the  province  of  Hol- 
land "  is  one  or  the  most  significent  facts  in  this  case  in  reference 
to  the  boundary  of  the  coast  territory.  The  opinion  of  Storm,  an 
able  Colonial  administrator,  but  evidently  unversed  in  the  most 
elementary  principles  of  jurisprudence,  could  not  be  of  much 
value  as  to  territorial  claims,  or  as  embodying  principles  of  law. 
That  of  the  Company's  Directors,  whose  occupations  were  essen- 
tially mercantile,  although  their  admissions  had  important  effects, 
was  not  much  better.  But  here  we  have  an  authority,  unnamed, 
it  is  true,  but  nevertheless  so  characterized  as  to  entitle  it  to 
the  highest  respect,  consisting  not  of  one  man  alone,  but  of 
several,  whom  Storm  could  designate  as  "  the  foremost  jurists 
in  the  province  of   Holland,"  delivering  a  professional  opinion, 


DUTCH   BOUNDARY.  339 

iu  1749,  on  the  legal  aspects  of  the  question  of  the  boundary 
between  the  West  India  Company's  territory  and  that  of  Spain  on 
the  coast  of  Guiana,  This  opinion  is  not  lightly  to  be  thrown  aside 
by  the  Tribunal  now  considering  the  same  question.  The  facts  on 
which  the  opinion  was  based  were  those  furnished  by  Storm 
himself,  supplemented  by  the  Treaty  and  the  Charter.  The  state- 
ment of  the  opinion  is  so  clear  that  if  these  very  jurists  were 
then)selves  here  as  witnesses,  they  could  not  make  their  conclu- 
sion clearer.  A  point  is  named  between  Moruka  and  Waini,  and 
that  point,  in  the  opinion  of  the  foremost  jurists  of  Holland  in 
the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century,  was  Spanish  territory.  In 
the  face  of  this  authority,  what  consideration  is  to  be  given  to  the 
ever-shifting  claims  of  Storm  and  the  Company?  Their  admissions 
of  course  bind  them;  but  their  claims  are  as  naught  beside  the 
weight  of  this  contemporaneous  and  authoritative  professional 
opinion,  from  the  standpoint  of  Dutch  law. 

In  the  contrite  spirit  shown  by  Storm  over  his  mistake  in  the 
affair  of  the  "Baskensburg,"  nothing  can  be  seen  of  any  terri- 
torial claim  to  Barima.  There  is  no  idea  of  a  boundary  even  at 
the  Waini,  much  less  at  the  Barima  or  the  Amakuru.  The 
boundary  in  his  mind  at  this  time  is  the  Moruka,  and  the  ship  is 
stranded  on  the  territory  of  Spain,  because  it  is  stranded  between 
Moruka  and  Waini. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  three  years  before  this,  in  1746, 
Storm  had  spoken  of  his  ignorance  of  the  boundaries  in  the 
interior;  that  hehad  repeatedly  asked  for  instructions  on  the 
point,  "  regarding  which  no  documents  whatever  are  to  be  found 
in  this  office"  (V.  C.  II,  98);  that  in  1755  the  Company,  after  a 
1  nine  years'  investigation  (V.  C.  II,  t)9),  had  been  unable  to  dis- 
!  cover  any  ground  of  territorial  claim.  Storm,  thereupon,  entered 
I  upon  the  same  doniain  of  speculation  in  reference  to  the  coast. 
'  Notwithstanding  the  opinion  of  the  jurists  and  the  conclusion  of 
}  the  Company,  he  was  still  in  doubt.     He  wrote,  on  September  1, 


340  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

1759,   speaking  of  the  Cuyuni  River  and  the  boundary  in  that 

quarter  (V.  C.  II,  137): 

**  That  river  being  so  far  on  this  side  of  Waini  (which  people  claim 
to  be  the  boundary,  although  I  think  it  must  be  extended  as  far  as  Barima), 
the  ownership  thereof  cannot  be  involved  in  the  slightest  question." 

In  1759,  therefore,  according  to  Storm,  "people  claimed" 
the  Waini  to  be  the  boundary.  This  is  a  considerable  step 
beyond  the  Gulf  of  Pechy,  which  ten  years  before  Storm  had 
learned  was  Spanish  territory,  which  fact  was  to  make  him  more 
prudent  in  future.  Nevertheless,  he  was  not  satisfied  with  it. 
He  wanted  the  Barima,  but  did  not  suggest  that  there  was  any 
claim  to  the  Barima.  On  the  contrary,  he  admitted  that  there 
was  none. 

As  far  as  tradition  went,  he  thought  that  the  boundary  stopped 
at  the  Waini;  but  he  said:  ""  I  think  it  must  be  extended  as  far 
as  Barima,"  by  which  he  meant  that  it  was  the  policy  of  the  Com- 
pany to  acquire  that  territory.  A  nation  does  not  extend  its 
boundary  when  it  only  claims  the  territory  up  to  its  established 
boundary.  To  extend  the  boundary  is  to  acquire  territory  beyond 
the  established  boundary. 

In  this  letter.  Storm  refers  again  to  D'Anville's  map  as  indi- 
cating the  boundary.  This  map  (Br.  Atlas,  map  16)  is  a  map  of 
the  whole  of  South  America,  and  was  published  in  1748.  In 
1760  D'Anville  published  a  second  map  (Bi-.  Atlas,  map  23).  A^ 
might  be  expected  from  its  date  and  from  its  extent,  it  is  ex- 
ceedingly imperfect  in  details.  It  marks  a  boundary  line  some- 
where between  the  rivers  Waini  and  Barima  (Amakuru,  as  he 
calls  it).  The  entire  course  of  both  the  Amakuru  and  the  Barimli 
is  put  on  the  Spanish  side  of  the  boundary.  The  position  of  the 
Waini  is  in  doubt.  The  boundary,  however,  is  placed  onthe  coa# 
line  well  to  tiie  east  of  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco.  D'AnvillA 
borrowing  of  the  line  from  an  earlier  map  has  been  already  i^ 
f erred  to  (p.        ).  ? . 

To  this  letter  the  Company  replied  December  3,  1759  (V.  C.  Il^ 


I 


DUTCH    BOUNDARY.  341 

138-9),  asking  Storm  to  lay  before  them  everything  which 
might  be  of  service  in  proof  of  ownership  of  the  Cuyuni,  and 
they  added : 

"  We  see  from  your  letter  that  you  make  the  boundary  of  the  Colony 
toward  the  side  of  Orinoco  to  extend  not  only  to  Waini,  but  even  as  far  as 
Barima.  We  should  like  to  be  informed  of  the  grounds  upon  which  you 
base  this  claim,  and  especially  your  inference  that,  Cuyuni  being  situate  on 
this  side  of  Waini,  it  must  therefore  necessarily  belong  to  the  Colony; 
for,  so  far  as  we  know,  there  exist  no  conventions  [to  the  effect]  that  the 
boundary  lines  in  South  America  run  in  a  straight  line  from  the  seacoast 
inland,  as  do  most  of  the  frontier  lines  of  the  English  colonies  in  North 
America." 

The  Company  had  evidently  been  led  to  believe  from  its 
[Mc-vious  correspondence  with  Storm  that  the  Waini  was  the 
boundaiy.  Now  they  say  he  is  making  the  boundary  extend  to 
Barima,   and   they   wish  to  know  the  grounds.     Grounds,  how- 

^ever,  were  precisely  what  Storm  was  in  no  position  to  furnish. 

!ln  his  reply,  May  2,  1760  (V.  C.  II,  140),  he  stated: 

"The  rivers  themselves,  which  have  been  in  the  possession  of  your 
I  Lordships  for  such  a  large  number  of  years,  and  have  been  inhabited  by 
I  subjects  of  the  State  without  any  or  the  least  opposition  on  the  part  of  the 
i^panish,  are  most  certainly  the  property  of  your  Lordshii^s." 

He  went  on  to  say: 

"  I  am  strengthened  in  my  view  of  this  matter  by  the  fact  that  Cajoeny 
not  a  separate  river  like  Weyne   and  Pouwaron  (which  last  has  been 
led,  and  still  contains  the  foundations  of  your    Lordships'  fortresses), 
'It  an  actual  part  of  the  Kiver  Essequibo,"  etc. 

The  argument  here  is  confined  to  the  Cuyuni,  but  its  negative 

application  to  the  coast  territory  is  most  significant.     It  does  not 

[refer  to  Barima,  and  its  allusion  to  Waini  is  directly  against  a 

"laim  of  rights  to  that  river.     Cuyuni,  Storm  reasons,  is  Dutch, 

I  the  ground  of  possession  and  also  it  is  a  branch  of  the  Esse- 

juibo.     Pomeroon   is  a  separate   river,  but  it  has  been  settled; 

herefore  it  is  Dutch   territory.     But  Waini,  which   is   neither  a 

nch  of  the  Essequibo  nor  settled  by  Dutchmen,  would  seem 

o  be  entirely  excluded. 


■ 


842  ADVERSE  HOLDING, 

The  question  of  the  boundary  in  the  coast  territory  could  not, 

however,  be  settled  in  this  manner.     It  was  sure  to  come  up,  and 

that    shortly.     In   1760   Lieutenant  Flores   made  his  capture  of 

boats  in  the  Barima,  and  Storm,  in  reporting  the  fact,  said  (V,  C. 

II,  142): 

"They  also  took  some  canoes  on  this  side  of  Barima,  and  thus  within 
the  Honorable  Company's  territory." 

The  Company  replied  in  the  next  year,  asking  Storm  (V.  C.  II, 

143) 

"the  reasons  why  you  deem  that  everything  which  has  happened  on  this 
side  of  Barima  must  be  deemed  to  have  occurred  on  territory  of  the  Com- 
pany; in  order  that,  when  we  shall  have  examined  all  this,  we  may  take 
further  resolution  as  to  what  it  behooves  us  to  do  in  this  matter." 

The  answer  of  the  Secretary  in  Essequibo,  Spoors,  dated  August 
5,  1761  (V,  C.  II,  144),  is  not  very  satisfactory.     He  said: 

"In  compliance  wi^h  these  your  orders,  I  respectfully  reply  that  the 
aforesaid  boats,  having  been  seized  by  those  robbers  between  the  rivers  of 
Barima  and  Waini,  were  absolutely  on  the  Company's  coast,  for  this  is  cer- 
tain (not  to  enter  upon  the  various  opinions  which  exist  about  the  limits  of 
the  Company's  domains)  that  the  river  of  Waini  indisputably  belongs  to  the 
Company." 

In  this  rather  incoherent  reasoning  we  have  still  another  claim, 
and  return  for  the  moment  to  the  Waini.  But  this  letter  was  evi- 
dently sent  in  Storm's  absence,  for  a  week  later,  on  August  12,  he 
modified  the  claim,  but  in  such  a  way  as  to  reduce  the  subject  to 
hopeless  confusion.     He  said  (V.  C.  II,  145): 

"  The  latter  having  been  captured  this  side  of  Barima  I  am  of  opinion 
that  it  was  captnred  upon  the  Honourable  Company's  territory,  for  although 
there  are  no  positive  proofs  to  be  found  here,  such  has  always  been  so  con- 
sidered by  the  oldest  settlers,  as  also  by  all  the  free  Indians.  Amongst  the 
latter  I  have  spoken  with  some  very  old  Caraibans,  who  told  me  that  they 
remember  the  time  when  the  Honourable  Company  had  a  Post  in  Barima, 
for  the  re-establishment  of  which  they  had  often  asked,  in  order  that  they 
might  be  relieved  from  the  annoyance  of  the  Surinama  traders;  and  then, 
lastly,  because  the  boundaries  are  always  thus  defined  by  foreigners,  as  mayl 
be  seen  on  the  map  prepared  by  D'Anville,  the  Frenchman." 


DUTCH  BOUNDARY.  343 

In  1759  Storm  was  expressing  the  opinion  that  the  boundary 
"  must  be  extended  as  far  as  Bariraa."  In  1761  he  apparently  has 
extended  it  to  the  Barima,  "  although  there  are  no  positive 
proofs."  That  makes  no  difference;  in  such  a  process  proofs  are 
superfluous.  If  proofs  were  needed,  they  are  supplied  by  the  fact 
that  it  "has  always  been  so  considered  by  the  oldest  settlers." 
Yet  it  was  of  "  this  talk  "  that  Storm  said,  in  1748,  that  it  "  gives 
lot  the  slightest  certainty."  Who  the  settlers  were  it  is  difficult 
to  say.  They  certainly  were  not  settlers  in  Barima,  for  there  were 
Iflio  such  settlers. 

There  remains  the  fact  that  "  the  boundaries  are  always  thus 
lefined  by  foreigners,  as  may  be  seen  on  the  map  prepared  by 

TAnvilie."  But  unfortunately  in  D'Anville's  map,  which  we 
lave  in  the  British  Atlas,  the  line  is  not  on  the  Barima,     The 

Jarima    is  entiiely   included   in  Spanish    territory.      So  is   the 

imakuru. 

How  little  Storm  knew  about  the  geography  of  the  Barima  and 
low  little  he  was  qualified  to  pass  on  these  questions  may  be  in- 

jrred  from  a  statement  in  his  letter  of  August  27,  1772  (V.  C.  II, 
(19),  which  describes  a  map  that  a  surveyor  has  just  made  for 
Mm,  and  in  reference  to  which  he  remarked: 

"What  astonished  me  most,  my  lords,  was  to  see  in  these  exact  plans 
the  situation  of  the  Post  in  Maroco;  I  could  never  have  imagined  that  it 
jay  so  far  up  the  creek  from  the  sea-coast." 

But  this  is  not  the  last  word  from  Storm  about  the  boundary. 
\^ithin  three  years  after  the  letter  last  quoted,  that  is,  in  1764, 
Storm  wrote  to  the  Governor  of  Surinam,  which  place  was  not  in- 
cluded in  the  charter  or  under  the  control  of  the  Dutch  West  India 
Company  (V.  C.  II,  158),  in  reference  to  the  Surinam  rovers  who 
were  provided  with  passes  by  the  Governor  to  go  to  Barima.  He 
made  the  following  extraordinary  statement: 

'*  At  this  opportunity,  since  I  am  speaking  of  this,  I  take  the  liberty  to 
inform  you,  that  your  naming  in  those  passes  the  river  Barima  causes  com- 
plaints  from   the   Spaniards,  who,  maintaining  that  that  river  is  theirs, 


I 


344  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

WHEREIN  I  BELIEVE  THEY  ARE  RIGHT,  have  already  sent  some  of 
these  passes  to  the  Court  of  Spain." 

Upon  this  letter  the  British  Case  (p.  51)  makes  the  following 

comments: 

"  But  while  claiming  as  Dutch  all  the  territory  up  to  the  right  bank  of 
the  Barima,  the  Director- General  appears  to  have  thought  it  inexpedient 
that  the  Dutch  passes  to  traders  should  purport  to  include  that  river.  In  a 
copy  of  a  letter,  said  to  have  been  sent  by  him  on  the  18th  of  August,  1764, 
to  the  Governor  of  Surinam,  the  latter  is  requested  not  to  name  Barima  in 
his  passes,  as  that  gave  offense  to  the  Spaniards." 

The  explanation  by  which  the  British  Case,  in  the  above  cited 
passage,  attempts  to  do  away  with  the  effect  of  Storm's  conclu- 
sive statement,  is  that,  while  claiming  the  territory  as  Dutch,  the 
Director-General  thought  it  inexpedient  that  the  Dutch  passes 
should  purport  to  include  that  river.  But  where  was  it  that 
Storm  was  making  any  claim?  He  never  suggested  any  claim  to 
the  Spaniards;  on  the  contrary,  when  the  Spaniards  were,  year  in 
and  year  out,  doing  acts  in  the  territory  that  showed  exclusive 
control,  neither  Storm,  nor  the  Company,  nor  the  Government, 
ever  raised  a  word  of  protest.  In  fact.  Storm  was  expressly 
avoiding  claims,  and,  as  the  very  letter  in  question  plainly  shows, 
was  endeavoring  to  convince  the  Spaniards  that  he  was  making 
none.  Why  is  it  that  he  asks  the  Governor  of  Surinam  not  to 
name  the  Barima  in  his  passes?  Because  ''your  naming  in  thos(> 
passes  the  river  Barima  causes  complaints  from  the  Spaniards, 
who,  maintaining  that  that  river  is  theirs,  wherein  I  believe  thcv 
are  right,  have  already  sent  some  of  these  passes  to  the  Court  ot 
Spain."  The  whole  object  of  his  communication  to  the  Governor 
of  Surinam  is  to  prevent  any  suggestion  of  a  claim  which  the 
Spanish  dispute. 

The  British  Case  goes  on  to  say  of  Storm's  letter: 
"The  writer  adds  thut  they  "  [the  Spaniards]  "  niaintiiiiu'.l  that  that  riv.  r 
was  theirs,  iuul  expresses  an  opinion  in  their  favor  upon  this  point,  which, 
in  one  view,  might  be  said  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  claim  of  the  Director- 
General  to  the  territory  up  to  the  right  bank." 


il 


DUTCH    BOUNDARY.  345 

What  is  the  "  opinion  expressed  by  the  writer  "  here  referred 
to?  It  is  a  frank  and  unquahfied  statement  of  his  belief  in  the 
merits  of  the  Spanish  claim.  And  what  are  the  words  in  which 
he  utters  it?  "  Wherein  I  believe  they  are  right."  It  is  cer- 
tainly safe  to  say  that,  in  one  view,  these  words  might  be  said  to 
be  inconsistent  with  the  Dutch  claim  of  territory  to  the  Barima. 
It  would  be  more  correct  to  say  that,  in  ev^ery  view,  they  not  only 
might  be,  but  they  are,  in  direct  contradiction  of  any  such  Dutch 
claim;  and  being,  as  they  are,  a  contemporaneous  statement  of  the 
belief  existing  in  the  writer's  own  mind,  they  constitute  an  utter 
dismissal  and  rejection  of  all  doubt  or  uncertainty  as  far  as  his 
personal  views  are  concerned  in  a  form  than  which  none  could  be 
more  forcible. 

Neither  the  Company  nor  Storm  had  ever  claimed  Barima.  In 
his  correspondence  he  had  advised  the  Company  "  to  extend  their 
boundary  "  to  the  Barima;  and  when  the  Company  had  asked  him 
what  grounds  he  had  for  the  suggestion,  he  was  unable  to  give 
any  except  a  map,  which  was  directly  against  his  contention,  the 
chance  opinions  of  ancient  Indians  and  colonists,  and  the  mythical 
tradition  of  a  Dutch  post  of  which  he  had  no  record.  Anything  in 
tlie  nature  of  sending  a  claim  to  the  Spaniards  he  discouraged. 

No  doubt  it  was  with  the  same  feeling  in  mind  that  he  wrote 
two  years  later,  in  17(30,  to  the  Governor  of  Guayana,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  Rosen  matter  (B,  C.  Ill,  131),  that  a  party  of  Dutch 
colonists,  the  offscourings  of  the  colony  of  Essequibo,  were  lead- 
ing a  lawless  life  in  Barima  and  that  he  feared  bloodshed  and 
murder  would  come  of  it.     To  the  Company  he  said: 

"  The  west  side  of  Barima  being  certainly  Spanisii  territory  (and  that 

where  they  are),  I  can  use  no  violent  measures  to  destroy  this  nest,  not 

wishing  to  give  any  grounds  for  complaint;  wherefore  I  think  of  proposing 

to  the  Governor    ...     to  carry  this  out  hand-in-hand,  or  to  permit  me 

to  do  so,  or  as  and  in  what  manner  he  shall  consider  best." 

Even  in  the  above  letter  Storm  does  not  say  that  the  east  side 
of  Barima  is  Dutch  territory.     Aboiit  the  Spanish  claim  to  the  river 


I 


346  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

he  believed,  as  we  kaow  from  his  previous  utterances,  that  the 
Spaniards  were  right.  But  he  does  say  that  there  is  no  doubt  that 
the  west  side  is  Spanish;  and  with  the  same  idea  of  avoiding  any- 
thing that  might  cause  offence  to  the  Spaniards,  and  expressly  for 
that  reason,  he  applied  in  the  first  instance  to  the  Spanish  Governor. 

The  history  of  this  matter  will  be  referred  to  later.  Here  we 
are  only  concerned  with  the  claim.  The  occurrence  led  the  Court 
of  Policy  to  make  an  order  "forbidding  any  one  to  stop  in 
Barima,"  meaning  thereby,  of  course,  any  Dutch  colonist,  as  n 
shown  by  the  instruction  to  the  Postholder  of  Moruka  to  see  thai 
the  order  was  carried  out,  "  because  in  time  this  would  become 
den  of  thieves,  and  expose  us  to  the  danger  of  getting  mixed  uy 
in  a  quarrel  with  our  neighbours  the  Spaniards"  (B.  C.  Ill,  132), 

The  Governor  of  Orinoco  having  intimated  that  he  had  no  ob 
jection.  Storm  had  brought  the  offenders  into  Essequibo.  Th< 
Company's  comment  on  his  action  is  to  be  noticed,  as  frankh 
showing  how  entirely  in  the  dark  it  was  on  the  question  of  terrl 
torial  claims.     It  said  (B.  C.  Ill,  137): 

"  If  that  place  is  really  Spanish  territory,  then  you  have  acted  ver 
imprudently  and  irregularly;  and,  on  the  contrary,  if  that  place  forms  pai 
of  the  Colony,  and  you  had  previously  been  in  error  as  to  the  territory 
then  you  have  done  very  well,  and  we  must  fully  approve  of  your  course, 
also  of  the  Court's  Resolution  that  henceforth  no  one  shall  be  at  liberty  t< 
stay  on  the  Barima." 

Storm's  reply  is  characteristic.  He  boldly  asserts  (B.  C.  Ill 
141): 

"The  east  bank  being  in  our  jurisdiction,  the  Court  can  enforce  it( 
order  there." 

Apparently  however  he  has  some  doubt  about  it,  for  he  adds 

as  a  second  reason: 

"  Because  I  think  that  the  Court  certainly  has  the  power  to  forbid  its 
citizens  and  colonists  to  go  to  any  places  when  such  is  considered  to  be 
inexpedient  or  dangerous  for  the  Colony." 

This  is  an  excellent  reason,  but  it  negatives  the  idea  of  a  terri- 
torial claim. 


DUTCH  BOUNDARY.  34t 

It  is  idle,  however,  to  try  to  thread  the  mazes  of  Storm's  mind 
in  reference  to  the  boundary  in  the  coast  territory.  His  sugges- 
tions, from  beginning  to  end,  are  a  mass  of  contradictions,  and 
it  is  hardly  to  be  wondered  at  that  the  Company  was  involved 
in  like  contradictions  itself. 

Already,  in  1Y64,  Storm  had  taken  another  position  on  the 
boundary  question,  by  which  the  whole  subject  was  reduced  to 
hopeless  confusion.  In  that  year  the  Director-General  had  pub- 
lished what  purported  to  be  a  "Eegisterof  the  Colony  of  Esse- 
quibo  and  Demerary  "  (V".  C.  II,  159).  In  this  "Register,"  with 
that  singular  variableness  which  characterized  the  colonial  utter- 
ances in  reference  to  the  boundary,  the  Colony  was  described  as 
extending  "from  the  creek  Abari  on  the  east  to  the  River  Ama- 
cura  on  the  north."  This  is  an  entirely  new  suggestion,  never 
made  in  Storm's  reports  to  the  Company,  for  in  these  the  Ama- 
cura  was  never  mentioned.  It  is  the  only  suggestion  made  during 
the  period  of  Dutch  history  by  anybody,  official  or  unofficial,  that 

I     this  particular  river  marked  the  extent  of  the  Dutch  territories. 

,  It  of  course  has  reference  to  the  erroneous  position  of  the  Ama- 
kuru  in  D'Auville's  map,  although  even  in  this  map  the  boundary 

j     not  go  to  that  river. 

The  West  India  Company,  however,  took  small  account  of  the 

I  various  suggestions  as  to  the  boundary,  either  on  or  beyond  the 
Waini,  or  on  or  beyond  the  Barima,  and  least  of  all  to  the  sugges- 
tion in  the  "  Register  "  about  the  Amacura.  It  disposed  of  all  of 
them  in  short  order  in  its  Memorial  to  the  States-General,  Novem- 
ber 26,  1765  (V.  C.  II,  162),  where  it  stated  that 

Demerara  "  is  situate  between  tlie  two  extremest  trading  places  or  posts 
in  Essequibo,  namely,  the  one,  to  the  north,  on  the  river  Moruca,  and  tlie 
other,  to  the  south,  on  the  river  Mahaicony,  both  of  which  rivers,  as  well 
as  the  others  situate  between,  pertain  to  that  Colony;  which  of  course 
shows  undeniably  tliat  Demerara  is  one  and  the  same  Colony  with  Essequibo. "" 

This  statement,  of  the  territorial  limits,  occurs  in  an  official 
communication   from   the  Company  to   the  Government  of  the 


I 


348  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

Netherlands.  There  is  no  mistaking  the  meaning  of  these  words, 
*'  the  two  extremest  trading  places  or  posts  in  Essequibo,  namely, 
the  one,  to  the  north,  on  the  river  Moruca,  and  the  other,  to  the 
south,  on  the  river  Mahaicony;"  and  still  more  the  next  phrase, 
''both  of  which  rivers,  as  well  as  the  others  situate  between, 
pertain  to  that  Colony."  In  view  of  this  statement  alone,  it  is 
impossible  for  anybody  to  say  that  in  1765  the  Dutch  authorities 
were  claiming  anything  for  their  territorial  possessions  beyond 
the  post  of  Moruka. 

This,  however,  does  not  prevent  Storm  from  going  on  with  his 
suggestions.  The  very  last  reference  made  by  him  to  the  boun- 
dary is  an  allusion,  in  September,  1768,  to  the  capture  of  a  salting 
vessel  by  the  Spaniards  (V.  C.  II,  177),  ''before  the  River  Wayui 
(indisputably  the  company's  territory)." 

This  occurrence  was  referred  to  in  the  Remonstrance  (V.  C. 
II,  200)  to  Spain  in  1769  drawn  up  by  the  States- General,  and  it 
is  spoken  of  as  undertaking  "  to  prevent  the  fishery  upon  the 
territory  of  the  State  itself,  extending  from  the  river  Marowyn 
to  beyond  the  river  Waini,  not  far  from  the  mouth  of  the  river 
Orinoco,  according  to  the  existing  maps  thereof,  particularly  that 
of  M.  d'Anville." 

This  is  the  farthest  territorial  claim  ever  asserted  by  the  West 
India  Company  in  the  coast  territory.  It  is  important  not  for 
what  it  claims,  but  for  what  it  disclaims.  It  fixes  the  claim  of 
boundary  of  the  territory  not  at  the  Amakuru,  not  at  the  Barima, 
but  "beyond  the  river  Waini,"  a  term  which  can  only  be  under- 
stood to  mean  a  claim  of  territory  to  both  banks  of  the  Waini.  It 
is  only  a  claim  of  coast  line.  It  is  contradicted  by  the  Memorial  of 
1765,  also  presented  to  the  States  General,  naming  the  Moruka  as 
the  boundary.  How  far  the  claim  was  supported  by  acts  of  occu- 
pation will  be  considered  in  another  place.  Here  it  is  only  men-  | 
tioned  to  show  what  the  claim  was,  and  what  it  was  not. 

Although  from  this    time  on    the    Spanish  guard-boats  and    ^ 
police  authorities  constantly  patrolled    the   coast  territory,   fre-.   I 


DUTCH  BOUNDARY.  349 

quently  apprehending  Dutchmen  therein,  no  remonstrance  was 
ever  made  again  by  the  Director-General  of  the  colony  to  the  end 
of  its  history,  or  by  the  West  India  Company  or  the  Dutch 
Government.  No  reference  was  ever  made  to  the  boundary 
which  Storm  had  sought  to  establish,  and  the  claim  which  never 
went  beyond  the  Waini  was  never  again  heard  of. 

So  completely  was  the  claim  abandoned  that  in  1794  the  first 
Governor-General  of  Essequibo,  after  the  final  termination  of  the 
West  India  Company's  charter,  Sirtema  van  Grovestins,  in  re- 
porting a  voyage  of  exploration  in  the  Pomeroon  and  neighboring 
districts,  stated  (V.  C.  II,  248): 

K   "Went  on  as  far  as  the  Creek  of  Moruca,  which  up  to  now  has 

BEEN  MAINTAINED   TO    BE  THE  BOUNDARY   OF   OUR  TERRITORY   WITH  THAT 

OF  Spain. 

In  1808,  according  to  the  British  Case  (p.  63): 

"Two  Protectors  of  the  Indians  were  appointed  for  the  Colony,  wMcli 
wan  divided  into  two  districts  for  the  purpose.^^ 

One  of  these  districts  was  the  Essequibo,  with  the  rivers  and 
creeks  flowing  into  it.  The  other  district  was  stated  to  be  (B.  C. 
V.  191): 

"The  west  coast  of  the  aforesaid  Colony  from  the  Creek  Snpename  right 
up  to  the  Spanish  boundary,  the  River  Pomeroon  being  included  therein." 

During  all  this  period  the  Spanish  claim  was  well  known. 
That  claim  extended  throughout  the  whole  territory  and  as  far  as 
the  Essequibo. 

The  boundary  claimed  by  the  Spanish  authorities  is  shown 
more  by  their  acts  than  by  their  words.  They  never  had  occasion 
to  discuss  the  question  for  they  were  not  only  dejure,  but  de  facto 
masters  of  Barima,  as  well  as  of  the  interior,  and  the  Dutch  never 
once  disputed  their  innumerable  acts  of  dominion  on  this  territory 
unless  the  reference  to  the  fishing  vessel  captured  "before  the 
river  Wayni "  can  be  so  considered.     Nor  did  they  ever  find  Esse- 


I 


350  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

quibo  Dutchmen  settled  in  this  territory,  except  in  the  case  of 
Rosen,  when  Storm  asked  their  consent  to  act,  and  in  the  case  of 
La  Riviere,  when  they  expelled  the  intruders  themselves.  In  the 
interior  there  never  was  the  slightest  semblance  of  a  Dutch  set- 
tlement. 

During  all  this  period  the  Spaniards  exercised  control  in  both 
districts.  In  the  interior  they  destroyed  the  Dutch  post  and  cap- 
tured its  occupants,  and  they  patrolled  the  I'iver  to  the  falls  of  the 
Cuyuni,  finally  establishing  a  fort  on  its  southern  bank  at  the 
mouth  of  the  Curumo.  In  the  coast  territory  their  coastguard 
vessels  were  constantly  patrolling  the  rivers,  and  they  frequently 
exercised  jurisdiction  over  Dutchmen  found  in  the  territory. 

Under  these  circumstances  there  was  little  call  for  the  Spanish 
Government  to  express  in  terms  their  territorial  claims.  They  had 
asserted  them  in  the  beginning  of  the  century  in  reference  to  the 
horse  trade,  and  they  had  been  admitted.  They  had  asserted  them 
when  Storm  protested  against  the  destruction  of  the  post  in 
Cuyuni,  in  Governor  De  Castro's  letter  stating  that  the  post  was 
*'  in  the  dominions  of  the  King  my  Sovereign,"  and  adding  that 
'*  this  same  River  Cuyuni  and  all  its  territory  is  included  in  those 
dominions." 

When  the  colonist  Pinet,  whom  Storm  sent  in  1748  to  Orinoco 
on  a  mission  of  observation,  addressed  the  Spanish  Governor  on 
the  subject  of  his  treatment  of  the  Indians,  the  latter  had  replied 
"that  the  whole  of  America  belonged  to  the  King  of  Spain,  and 
that  he  should  do  what  suited  himself,  without  troubling  about 
us."  These  words  are  not  so  grandiose  as  they  sound.  Except 
for  the  territories  which  had  been  ceded,  they  claimed  the  original 
title  to  the  whole  of  Guiana, — a  title  not  only  anterior  in  date  to 
every  other,  but  one  which  had  been  effectively  enforced. 

So  also,  when  an  emissary  was  sent  to  the  Orinoco,  in  1769,  to 
recover  fugitive  slaves.  The  Governor  bade  him  return  with  this 
message  (V.  C.  II,  197): 


DUTCH   BOUNDARY.  351 

"  That  the  land  belonged  to  His  Catholic  Majesty  as  far  as  the  bank 
of  Oene,  and  that  he  would  come  and  seize  those  plantations  which  lay  on 
Spanish  territory." 

So  when  Don  Matheo  Beltran  carried  off  a  number  of  Indians 
from  Moruka,  in  1775,  he  said  to  the  Postholder  (V.  C.  II,  229): 

"  That  his  lord  and  master  would  shortly  set  a  guard  in  the  arm  of  the 
Weene  called  the  Barmani,  and  that  the  whole  of  Maroekka  belonged  to 
the  Spaniards." 

The  real  and  positive  assertion,  however,  of  the  Spanish  claims 
lies  in  the  acts  performed  by  the  Spaniards  in  Barima,  which  will 
be  described  in  subsequent  chapters. 


I 


CHAPTER  XI, 
THE  LAW  OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING, 

Title  to  real  property  may  be  obtained  by  original  acquisition, 
that  is  to  say,  by  the  occupation  of  unoccupied  land  to  which  no 
one  had  theretofore  any  claim  of  title. 

As  has  been  shown  in  an  earh'er  chapter,  the  Spanish  acquired 
by  a  perfected  discovery  an  original  and  perfect  title  to  the  whole 
of  Guiana, 

After  original  acquisition,  the  next  form  of  acquisition  is 
where  the  property  acquired  had  been  the  property  of  another 
before  the  acquisition,  but  where  the  person  acquiring  the  prop- 
erty does  not  in  any  way  base  his  ownership  on  the  title  of  the 
former  owner,  or  of  any  former  owner,  but  acquires  a  title 
adversely  to  that  of  the  former  owner.  This  is  known  as  acquisi- 
tion of  title  by  "  prescription  "  or  "  adverse  holding." 

This  mode  of  acquiring  title  is  thus  defined  by  F.  de  Martens 
(Int.  Law,  pp.  460-461): 

"b. — Prescription  (usucajno).  Contrary  to  the  principle  of  private  law, 
international  law  admits  the  rnle  of  prescription  only  in  a  very  limited  de- 
gree.    A  resume  of  its  importance  is  given  in  the  following  : 

"  1.  International  law  does  not  recognize  a  limit  to  prescription,  for  a 
ute  is  master  of  a  territory  go  long  as  it  is  able  and  wishes  to  maintain  its 
authority  therein. 

"2.  In  the  domain  of  international  relations  nothing  can  interrupt  the 
continuance  of  an  ancient  right.  A  government  may  in  fact  lose  a  posses- 
I  sion,  but  it  is  always  legal  to  attempt  recovery  of  the  same  in  one  way  or 
another. 

"3.  In  international  law  no  real  importance  is  attached  to  anything  but 
immemorial  antiquity  {antiquitas,  vetustas,  cujus  contraria  inemoria  non 
istit).  This  it  is  which  forms  the  foundation  of  all  jural  relations,  botli 
ibr  the  existence  of  barbaric  and  civilized  states.  Length  of  time  and  the 
sanction  of  history  impose  silence  on  all  claims  and  charges  that  might 
have  been  justified  in  the  beginning  by  the  violence  and  injustice  committed 
at  tlie  time  of  gaining  territory.     In  this  sense  it  may  especially  be  said  of 


I 


354  THE  LAW  OP  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

states:  '  Beati  poHsidentes!'    The  accomplished  fact  covered  by  immemo- 
rial antiquity  becomes  legitimate  in  the  age  of  international  law." 

The  Dutch  English  claim  in  the  present  case  is  not  a  claim  of 
immemorial  possession.  It  lacks  this  quality,  which,  as  the 
learned  author  says,  is  the  most  essential  ingredient  of  prsecript- 
ive  rights  in  international  law.  On  the  contrary,  everything 
relating  to  the  origin  of  the  Dutch  title  is  a  matter  of  history. 
That  title  was  acquired  by  cession  from  Spain,  and  the  question 
here  is  whether,  by  the  subsequent  acts  of  the  Dutch,  territories 
not  included  in  the  cession  could  by  prescription  have  been  ac- 
quired from  Spain.  As  the  learned  author  intimates,  such  a  mode 
of  acquisition  is  favored  by  international  law  only  to  a  limited  de- 
gree, and  the  law  does  not  recognize  a  limit  of  time. 

It  was  in  view  of  this  principle  of  international  law  that  it 
was  necessary,  in  order  to  give  effect  to  alleged  acts  of  Dutch  oc- 
cupation, if  any  there  were,  that  the  limitation  of  fifty  years  was 
prescribed  by  the  Treaty.  It  stated  an  exception  to  the  general 
tendencies  and  spirit  of  international  law.  It  was  a  concession  to 
Great  Britain.  It  provided  that  if  Great  Britain  could  prove  an 
adverse  possession,  by  the  Dutch,  for  fifty  years  of  some  part  of 
this  terrritory  beyond  that  which  they  had  acquired  by  cession, 
such  proof  should  be  admitted  as  vesting  a  title  in  the  Nether- 
lands. 

The  question  here,  therefore,  is  not  a  question  of  present  pos- 
session supported  by  immemorial  antiquity,  but  a  question 
whether  at  any  time  during  the  period  of  Dutch  rule  an  adverse 
liolding  for  fifty  years  by  that  nation  can  be  shown  in  any  part  of 
the  territory  in  dispute;  in  other  words,  what,  if  any,  territory 
west  of  Essequibo,  the  Netherlands  acquired  subsequently  by  an 
adverse  holding  of  fifty  years. 

Vattel,  Book  II,  Ch.  XI  (Chitty's  Transu.,  Phila.,  Ed.  1859), 
says,  §  140  (p.  187): 

"  Usucaption  is  the  acquisition  of  domain  founded  on  a  long  posses- 
sion, uninterrupted  and  undisputed— that  is  to  say,  an  acquisition  solely 


THE  LAW  OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING.  355 

proved  by  this  possession.  Wolf  defines  it,  an  acquisition  of  domain 
founded  on  a  presumed  desertion.  His  definition  explains  the  manner  in 
which  a  long  and  peaceful  possession  may  serve  to  establish  the  acquisition 
of  domain.  Modestinus,  Digest,  lib.  3,  de  Usurp,  et  Usucap,,  says,  in 
conformity  to  the  principles  of  Eoman  law,  that  usucapHon  is  the  acqui- 
sition of  domain  by  possession  continued  during  a  certain  period  pre- 
scribed by  law.  These  three  definitions  are  by  no  means  incompatible 
with  each  other;  and  it  is  easy  to  reconcile  them  by  setting  aside  what 
relates  to  the  civil  law  in  the  last  of  the  three.  In  the  first  of  them  Ave 
have  endeavored  clearly  to  express  the  idea  commonly  affixed  to  the  term 

'"  I'resrriplion  is  the  exclusion  of  all  the  pretensions  to  a  right — an 
exclusion  founded  on  the  length  of  time  during  which  that  right  has  been 
neglected,  or,  according  to  Wolf's  definition,  it  is  the  loss  of  an  inherent 
right  by  virtue  of  a  presumed  consent.  This  definition,  too,  is  Just;  that 
is.  it  explains  how  a  right  maybe  forfeited  by  long  neglect;  and  it  agrees 
with  the  nominal  definition  we  give  to  the  term  pt-escription,  in  which  we 
confine  ourselves  to  the  meaning  usually  annexed  to  the  word."' 

The  claim  of  "prescription"  or  "adverse  holding,"  meaning  a 
naked  holding  or  possession  by  which  title  may  be  acquired,  ad- 
versely or  in  opposition  to  the  holder  of  the  prior  title,  as  applied 
by  the  Treaty  to  the  present  controversy  between  two  sovereign 
States,  has  been  already  discussed.  It  has  been  shown  that  it 
necessarily  presupposes  the  prior  title,  as  is  admitted  in  the  British 
Counter  Case  (page  114),  as  follows: 

"  But  no  question  of  adverse  holding  or  prescription  can  arise  except 
where  one  Power  has  occupied  territory  by  right  belonging  to  the  other.'' 

It  has  been  further  shown  that  in  a  case  of  adverse  holding  be- 
tween States,  the  possession  indicated  must  be  a  national  posses- 
sion. This  is  characteristic  of  all  occupation  upon  which  public 
title  is  based.     Thus  F.  de  Martens  says  (Int.  Law,  p.  463): 

"  From  a  subjective  point  of  view,  the  occupation  must  necessarily  be 
made  in  the  name  and  with  the  assent  of  a  government.  If  this  is  effected 
by  officials  representing  a  state,  there  is  no  doubt  as  to  the  nation  which 
slionld  be  considered  as  the  rightful  proprietor  of  the  occupied  land.  An 
occupation  undertaken  by  individuals  should  be  sanctioned  by  the  govern- 
liient  on  whose  behalf  it  has  been  accomplished." 


366  THE  LAW  OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

It  has  also  been  shown  that,  under  the  Treaty  as  well  as  under 
the  general  principles  of  law,  nothing  less  can  be  held  to  indicate 
possession  than  an  actual  settlement,  established  by  national  au- 
thority and  remaining  under  national  control;  and  that,  in  this 
particular  case,  the  Treaty  has,  further,  authorized  the  Arbitra- 
tors to  consider  what,  if  any,  effect  shall  be  given  to  the  exercise 
of  an  exclusive  political  control,  if  they  find  such  control,  lasting 
for  a  period  of  fifty  years,  but  without  actual  settlement. 

Apart  from  these  conditions,  however,  as  the  term  "adverse 
holding  "  or  "  adverse  possession  "  is  one  of  familiar  use  in  modern 
jurisprudence,  and  has  been  made  the  subject  of  adjudications  in 
English  and  American  courts,  certain  well-recognized  principles 
have  been  established  to  describe  and  define  the  conditions  of  ad- 
verse holding  in  general  requisite  to  establish  a  title.  These  prin- 
ciples are  inherent  in  the  common  acceptation  of  the  term,  and 
must  be  considered  in  ascertaining  its  meaning  and  its  application 
in  this  arbitration,  in  addition  to  and  in  connection  with  the 
definitions  stated  in  the  Treaty. 

According  to  Phillimore  (International  Law,  3rd  edition,  vol. 
I,  p.  367),  these  are  not  only  required  in  the  case  of  an  adverse 
holding  by  individuals  under  municipal  law,  but  in  the  case  of  a 
prescriptive  holding  by  States  under  international  law.  He  says 
that  the  proofs  of  prescriptive  possession  are 

"  '  .  .  principally  publicity,  continued  occupation,  absence  of  in- 
terruption [vsuiyatio),  aided  no  doubt  generally,  both  morally  and  legally 
speaking,  by  the  employment  of  labor  and  capital  upon  the  possession  by 
the  new  possessor  during  the  period  of  the  silence,  or  the  passiveneaji 
{inertia),  or  the  absence  of  any  attempt  to  exercise  proprietary  rights,  by 
the  former  possessor.  The  period  of  time,  as  has  been  repeatedly  sai4, '' 
cannot  be  fixed  by  international  law  between  nations  as  it  may  be  by  pri- 
vate law  between  individuals  ;  it  must  depend  upon  variable  and  varying 
circumstances  ;  but  in  all  cases  these  proofs  would  be  required." 

He  adds  that  it  is  only  in  cases  where  dereliction  is  capable  ^ 
proof  that  " the  new  possessor  may  found  his  claim  upon  orig- 
inal occupation  alone,  without  calling  in  the  aid  of  prescription.' 


THE  LAW  OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING.  857 

In  another  place,  speaking  of  possession,  Phillimore  saj^s  (Int. 
Law,  3rd  edition,  vol.  I,  p.  325): 

''  That  person  is  properly  said  to  possess  a  thing  who  both  actually  and 
corporally  retains  it,  and  who  desires  and  intends  at  the  same  time  to  make 
it  his  own. 

''That  person  who,  having  no  such  desire  or  intention,  by  mere  cor- 
poral act  retains  a  thing,  is,  only  in  a  gross  and  inaccurate  sense,  said  to 
possess  it." 

Again  (p.  327),  he  says: 

"As  dominion  is  acquired  by  the  combination  of  the  two  elements  of 
f<vi  and  intention,  so,  by  the  dissolution  of  these  elements,  or  by  the  con- 
fntry  fact  and  intention,  it  may  be  lost  or  extinguished." 

These  requirements,  as  laid  down  by  Phillimore  for  Interna- 
tional Law,  are  based  upon  the  Roman  Law,  and  have  likewise 
been  adopted  by  the  English  Common  Law  for  an  adverse  hold- 
ing— requirements  which  are  inherent  in  the  meaning  of  the 
term  as  used  and  understood  by  the  negotiators  of  the  Treaty  of 
Arbitration.     These  requirements  will  now  be  discussed  in  detail. 

I.  In  establishing  a  Claim  of  Adverse  Holding,  the  Burden 
OF  Proof  is  upon  the  Party  setting  up  the  Claim. 

As  a  claim  of  adverse  holding  is  admittedly  and  necessarily  a 
;laira  to  found  a  title,  upon  a  state  of  facts,  in  opposition  to  that 
)f  the  prior  owner,  which  but  for  these  facts  would  be  conclusive 
md  paramount,  the  burden  of  proof  is  upon  the  party  setting  up 
he  claim.  If  there  were  no  claim  of  adverse  holding,  this  prior 
itle  would  stand  good  against  all  the  world.  The  attempt  to 
lispute  this  title  must  be  based  upon  a  certain  state  of  facts, 
mounting  to  adverse  holding  by  the  claimant,  which  the  claimant 
-  bound  to  prove.     His  claim  is  an  admission  of  a  prior  title. 

The  burden  is,  therefore,  in  the  present  controversy,  upon 
Heat  Britain,  as  the  representative  of  the  Dutch  title,  of  showing 
liat  she,  or  those  to  whom  she  has  succeeded  in  right,  acquiied 
itle  to  the  land  in  dispute  by  an  adverse  holding  of  fifty  years, 
iithin  the  meaning  of  the  Treaty  and  withjn  the  principles  not  iu 


ass  THE  LAW  OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

contravention   of   the  Treaty  which   the  law  has  laid  down   to 
govern  the  determination  of  such  a  claim. 

Venezuela  is  not  called  upon  to  prove  the  absence  of  settlement 
or  of  political  control  on  the  part  of  the  Dutch  in  the  territory  in 
question,  but  Great  Britain  is  called  upon  to  show  such  settlement 
or  control  affirmatively. 

II.  After  Title  has  once  been  fullv  acquired,  no  Obligation 

RESTS  UPON    its    HOLDER,     IN    ORDER  TO   MAINTAIN  IT, 

of   showing  a   continuous  succession  of 
Affirmative  Acts  of  Occupation. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  holder  of  the  prior  title,  holding  the 
property  as  owner  by  a  right  which,  except  for  this  claim  of  ad- 
verse holding,  is  good  against  all  the  world,  is  under  no  necessity 
of  setting  up  or  proving  the  continuance  of  actual  occupation. 
His  title  is  an  established  fact,  and  all  the  presumptions  are  in  his 
favor.     Whatever  may   be  the  conditions  required   to   establish 
prescription,  the  holder  of  the  original  title  is   not  affected  by 
these  requirements.     He  is  not  called  upon  to  show  either  actual  i 
sectlement  or  political  control.     Having  established  his  prior  title,  | 
all  that  is  necessary  to  continue  ownership  is  presumed  in  the  ! 
holder  of  the  title.     There  is  no  duty  upon  the  holder  of  the  title  j 
to  wild  land  to  settle  upon  his  land  in  order  to  maintain  his  title,  j 
or  even  to  enclose  it,  or  to  perform  any  act  upon  it  or  in  reference 
to  it  of  any  kind  whatever.  | 

Still  less  is  there  any  obligation  upon  States,  in  order  to   main- 

■r 

tain  their  public  title,  once  acquired,  of  sovereignty  or  dominiot 
to  territory,  actually  to  people  the  territory,  or  to  assert  an  acti^ 
political  control  by  the  performance  of  specific  acts,  for  which  no 
occasion  may  arise.  Even  authors  who  admit  the  principle 
voluntary  derehction  insist  that  the  abandonment  must  be  showjb 
by  the  most  conclusive  evidence.  Such  abandonment  certain) 
cannot  be  shown  by  the  absence  of  settlement,  or  by  the  absenle 
of  affirmative  acts  of  jurisdiction.     If  it  could,  a  large  part  of  tl^ 


ft 


THE  LAW  OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING.  359 

territories  held  to-day  by  civilized  States  under  unimpeachable 
titles  would  be  considered  as  in  a  condition  of  abandonment,  open 
to  the  first  comer. 

As  was  well  said  by  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  the  State  of  New 
York: 

"  The  settled  principles  of  law  require  courts  to  consider  the  true  owner 
as  constructively  in  possession  of  the  land  to  which  he  holds  the  title, 
unless  they  are  in  the  actual  hostile  occupation  of  another  under  a  claim  of 
title  ;  and  this  rule  is  still  more  imperative  in  the  case  of  wild  and  unculti- 
vated tracts  or  lands,  which  are  not  susceptible  of  actual  occupation  and 
cultivation." 

Bliss  v.  Johnson,  94  New  York  Reports,  235,  242,  (1883). 

Applying  thepe  principles  to  the  present  controversy  and  be- 
inning  with  the  starting  point  of  1648,  it  has  been  shown  that  at 
that  date  Spain  held  a  title  to  all  the  territory  west  of  Essequibo. 
It  matters  not,  therefore,  as  far  as  this  controversy  is  concerned, 
whether  during  the  one  hundred  and  sixty-six  years  following  the 
date  of  the  treaty  down  to  1814,  the  date  as  of  which  these  boundaries 
are  to  be  ascertained,  Spain  actually  maintained  settlements,  in  the 
territory  in  dispute,  or  how  much  of  it  she  settled,  or  whether  she 
settled  any  of  it.  It  matters  not  whether,  during  that  period, 
she  exercised  affirmative  control  over  a  large  or  a  small  part  of  it, 

• 

whether  this  was  a  political  or  non-political  control,  or  in  fact 
whether  she  performed  upon  it  any  acts  of  control  at  all.  As  we 
shall  show  from  the  evidence  in  this  case,  the  Spanish  actually 
exercised  a  complete  and  exclusive  political  control  over  the  whole 
of  this  territory,  and  for  more  than  a  century  after  the  Treaty  the 
Dutch  never  questioned  or  disputed  it,  west  of  Moruca  and  the 
falls  of  Cuyuni;  but  this  proof  is  not  necessary  to  the  maintenance 
of  the  Spanish  title.  The  question  here  is  not  what  the  Spaniards 
did  to  assert  their  title  to  territory  to  which  they  had  title  any 
more  than  it  is  a  question  what  the  Russian  Goverment  does  in 
Kamchatka  to  assert  its  title,  or  the  ICnglish  in  the  wilds  of  British 
Columbia.  The  fact  that  the  title  existed  in  Spain  is  enough, 
just  as  the  fact  that  the  title  to  the  other  territories  mentioned 


P,6(>  THE  LAW  OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

exists  in  Russia  or  in  Great  Britain.  The  question  is  what  was 
done  in  the  territory  in  dispute  by  the  Dutch  adversely  or  in  op- 
position to  the  Spanish  title,  to  estabhsh  in  them  a  new  title  as 
against  the  prior  title  of  Spain,  within  the  rules  of  the  Treaty, 
and  the  principles  of  law  governing  prescription. 

Nor  is  it  necessary,  even  where  adverse  possession  has  been 
maintained,  however  fully  and  completely,  during  apart  of  the 
required  time  and  then  interrupted,  for  the  original  owner  to  do 
any  act  in  order  to  resume  his  possession.  The  temporary  dis- 
seisin cannot  invalidate  his  title.  It  is  simply  as  if  it  had 
not  occurred,  and  his  title  revives  in  all  its  original  force.  This 
doctrine  is  firmly  established  by  a  decision  of  the  Privy  Council 
in  England,  in  a  comparatively  recent  case.  Agency  Company  v. 
Short  (1888)  13  Appeal  Cases,  793,  798,  Privy  Council.  The  case 
arose  in  New  South  Wales.  Here  the  adverse  holder  and  those 
whom  he  succeeded  in  title  failed  to  prove  continuous  possession 
for  the  whole  of  the  statutory  period.  The  Colonial  Court  held 
that  as  there  was  no  evidence  that  the  legal  owner  during  the 
statutory  period  letook  possession,  the  statute  when  set  running 
continued  to  run,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  there  was  a  break 
in  the  chain  of  adverse  possessors.  This  decision  was  reversed 
by  the  Privy  Council,  on  appeal,  and  it  was  held  by  the  highest 
Court  in  Great  Britain,  that  the  abandonment  of  possession  by 
the  intruders  left  the  rightful  owner  in  all  respects  as  he  was  be- 
fore the  intrusion  took  place.     The  Court  said: 

"  Their  Lordships  are  unable  to  concur  in  this  view  [the  view  of 
the  Colonial  Court].  They  are  of  opinion  that  if  a  person  enters 
upon  the  land  of  another  and  holds  possession  for  a  time,  and  then,  without 
having  acquired  title  under  the  statute,  abandons  possession,  the  rightful 
owner,  on  the  abandonment,  is  in  the  same  position  in  all  respects  as  he 
was  before  the  intrusion  took  place.  There  is  no  one  against  whom  he  can 
bring  an  action.  He  cannot  make  an  entry  upon  himself.  There  is  no 
positive  enactment,  nor  is  there  any  principle  of  law  which  requires  him 
to  do  any  act,  to  issue  any  notice,  or  to  perform  any  ceremony  in  onler  t<» 
rehabilitate  himself.     No  new  departure  is  necessary." 


THE  LAW  OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING.  361 

Applying  the  principle,  thus  laid  down  by  the  highest  judicial 
authority  in  Great  Britain,  to  the  present  case,  it  appeal's  that 
even  if  the  Dutch  had  entered  into  possession  at  some  point  and 
the  possession  came  to  an  end  before  the  period  of  fifty  years  had 
elapsed,  the  original  holder  of  the  title  immediately  resumed  pos- 
session and  his  title  revived  in  all  its  original  vigor.  It  was  not 
necessary  for  Spain,  under  such  circumstances,  to  do  any  act 
which  should  indicate  such  resumption.  Mere  discontinuance 
of  possession  before  the  expiration  of  the  fifty  years,  supposing 
that  there  had  been  possession  by  the  Netherlands  during  a 
part  of  that  time,  left  the  Spanish  title  in  all  respects  as  it  was 
before  the  intrusion  took  place.  Thus,  where  a  so-called  "post  in 
Cuyuni,"  that  of  Quive-Kuru,  was  maintained  from  1755  to  1758 
and  broken  up  at  the  latter  date,  assuming  that  the  "  post"  ful- 
filled in  other  respects  the  conditions  of  adverse  holding,  which, 
however,  is  denied,  its  discontinuance  served  as  an  interruption  of 
the  adverse  holding,  and  any  consequences  that  flowed  from  such 
holding  came  to  an  end.  The  Spanish  title  revived  when  it 
ceased. 

So  with  the  second  of  the  so-called  "posts  in  Cuyuni,"  which 
was  established  in  1765,  and  abandoned  in  consequence  of  a  threat- 
ened attack.  So  with  the  third  "  post,"  at  which  the  bylier  who 
had  been  driven  from  the  post  above,  finally  took  refuge,  and 
which,  after  dragging  out  a  feeble  existence  for  two  or  three 
years,  was  finally  and  entirely  abandoned  in  1772.  It  was  unne- 
cessary that  any  act  should  be  performed  by  Spain  in  order  to  re- 
|3ume  her  original  and  paramount  title.  If  adverse  holding  had  in 
liny  sense  begun  to  run  through  the  temporary  sojourn  of  these 
JDutch  trading-employees,  it  ceased  to  run  when  the  post  was 
ibandoned,  and  so  far  as  this  ephemeral  occupation  was  con- 
}|;erned,  the  Spanish  title  was  in  no  way  affected.  It  revived  as 
)f  course  upon  abandonment. 

In  the  case  of  the  first  of  these  posts,  that  of  Quive  Kuru,  the 
i:ase  was  not  even   one  of  voluntary  abandonment,  as  the  Dutch 


302  THE  LAW  OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

were  captured  and  the  post  was  destroyed   by  the  force  under  ] 

i 

Captain  Bonalde,  sent  for  that  purpose  by  the  Spanish  Com-  j 
mandant.  Supposing  that  Spanish  possession  had  been  inter-  s 
rupted  by  the  post  (which  is  denied),  there  was  a  forcible  resunip- 1 
tion  of  possession  on  the  part  of  Spain,  constituting  a  most! 
emphatic  reassertion  of  the  Spanish  title  and  of  Spanish  jurisdic-j 
tion.  But  in  neither  case,  under  this  decision  of  the  Privy  Coun-I 
cil,  can  that  title  be  held  to  have  been  affected  by  the  socalledj 
"posts  in  Cuyuni,"  and  they  may  be  absolutely  thrown  out  of* 
consideration  in  this  inquiry. 


III.    Adverse  Holding  must  be  evidenced  by  actual  Possession; 

AND  Control. 

\ : 

? 
The  object  of  adverse  holding,  in  law,  being  to  establish  a  title^ 

by  possession,  in  opposition  to  a  prior  title,  the  law  looks  closely 

at  the  evidence  of  possession  and  exacts  that  the  facts  which  are 

advanced  to  sustain  it  shall  be  such  as  amount  to  actual  possession 

and  control.    These  may  be  considered  in  two  aspects,  as  to 

(1)  Extent  of  possession. 

(2)  Character  of  possession. 

(1)  Extend  of  Possession. 

In  reference  to  the  extent  of  territory  to  which  title  may  be 
asserted  by  adverse  holding,  it  is  a  general  principle  of  law  that 
only  such  extent  of  territory  may  be  thus  acquired  as  is  actually 
possessed.  A  party  who  relies  on  adverse  possession  must,  it 
the  language  of  Chief  Justice  (afterwards  Chancellor)  Ken^ 
show^  a  "substantial  inclosure,  an  actual  occupancy,  a  ped^\ 
possessio,  which  is  definite,  positive  and  notorious,  to  cojistitute 
an  adverse  possession,  when  that  is  the  only  defence,  and  is  to 
countervail  a  legal  title"  {Jackson  v.  Shoonniaker,  2  Johnson 
(N.  Y.),  230,  234  (1807). 


THE  LAW  OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING.  363 

The  only  extension  of  this  rule  that  is  admitted  by  law  in  the 
case  of  private  individuals  is  where  the  adverse  holder,  entering 
under  a  deed  which,  though  as  a  deed  it  may  in  itself  be  worth- 
less, defines  the  bounds  of  his  territory,  takes  actual  possession 
only  of  a  part  of  the  territory  included  in  the  deed,  yet  is  held  to 
be  in  constiuctive  possession  of  the  whole.  The  reason  for  this 
extension  of  the  rule  is  plain.  As  the  adverse  holder  takes  his 
possession,  such  as  it  is.  under  a  paper  title  which  defines  larger 
boundaries,  the  taking  of  possession  is  to  be  considered  in  connec- 
tion with  the  boundaries  of  the  deed,  and  he  is  presumed  to  take 
possession  of  the  whole  which  is  included  in  the  paper  title  under 
which  he  took  actual  possession  of  a  part;  in  other  words,  he  is 
presumed  to  enter  according  to  his  title,  and  his  deed  is  notice  to 
all  the  world  that  the  possession  which  he  has  taken  is,  by 
implication,  a  possession  of  that  which  was  defined  by  metes 
and  bounds  therein.  He  is  then  said  to  be  in  actual  possession 
of  a  part  and,  by  reason  of  the  boundaries  stated  in  the  deed,  to 
be  in  possession  of  the  whole. 

Says  Mr,  Justice  Wood  worth: 

"  When  a  party  claims  to  hold,  adversely,  a  lot  of  land,  by  proving 
actual  occupancy  of  a  part  only,  his  claim  must  be  under  a  deed  or  paper 
title.  This  distinction  lias  been  uniformly  recognized,  and  acted  upon 
in  this  Court." 

Jackson  v.  Woodruff  (1823),  1  Cowen's  Reports  (New  York), 
276,  285. 

No  such  claim  of  constructive  possession  can  be  made  in  the 
present  case.  The  Dutch,  whatever  rights  they  may  have  had, 
never  had  a  title,  worthless  or  otherwise,  to  which  any  limits 
other  than  those  of  actual  occupation  could  be  assigned.  If, 
therefore,  they  acquired  actual  possession  in  any  part,  which  is 
not  admitted,  this  is  no  ground  for  allowing  a  constructive 
l)Ossession  to  any  other  part.  What  they  take  by  adverse  holding 
is  that  which  they  actually  occupy;  that  of  which  they  have  an 
actual  pedis  possessio. 


364  THE  LAW  OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

Such  is  the  doctrine  fully  recognized  by  English  as  well  as  by 
American  courts.     Says  Lord  Justice  Bramwell: 

"It  is  difficult  to  say  that  there  is  a  de  facto  possession,  when  there  is 
no  possession  except  of  those  parts  of  lane  which  are  in  actual  possession, 
and  there  is  an  interference  with  the  enjoyment  of  the  parts  which  are  not  in 
actual  possession  My  meaning  is  this,  if  there  were  an  inclosed  field  and 
a  man  turned  his  cattle  into  it,  and  locked  the  gate,  he  might  well  claim  to 
have  a  de  facto  possession  of  the  whole  field  ;  but  if  there  were  an  uninclosed 
common  of  a  mile  in  length,  and  he  turned  one  horse  on  one  end  of  the 
common,  he  could  not  be  said  to  have  a  de  facto  possession  of  the  whole 
length  of  the  common.  If  it  would  not  be  a  de  facto  possession  it  would 
be  a  nominal  possession.  If  no  right  were  attached  to  it "  (meaning  no 
definition  of  boundaries  by  paper  title),  ''it  would  not  be  a  constructive 
possession.  That  I  look  upon  as  being  the  condition  of  things,  and  con- 
sequently tiie  plaintiff  had  not  •d^de  facto  possession  beyond  the  spots  where 
his  animals  were  grazing." 

Coverdale  v.  Charlton  (1878),  Law  Reports  4,  Queen's  Bench 
Division,  104,  118. 

If  there  were  any  such  thing  as  constructive  Dutch  possession 
in  the  present  case,  there  is  no  possibility  of  assigning  any  limits 
to  it. 

Spain  as  the  discover  and  first  occupier  of  Guiana  entered 
under  defined  bounds,  upon  a  part  for  the  whole.  Her  settlements 
had  reference  to  those  bounds.  The  Dutch  entered  under  no 
claim  or  charter  defining  any  limits. 

Says  Chief  Justice  Parker: 

*'  But  no  presumption  of  a  claim,  and  of  color  of  title  beyond  the  actual 
occupation  could  arise  respecting  other  lots  than  that  of  which  the  party 
was  in  possession.  And  where  the  possession  was  in  a  township,  or  other 
large  tract  of  land,  which  had  never  been  divided  into  lots  for  settlement, 
no  particular  claim,  beyond  the  actual  occupation,  would  be  indicated,  and 
of  course  no  notice  of  any  such  claim  of  title  should  be  presumed." 

Bailey  v.  Carleton  (1841),  12  New  Hampshire  Reports,  9, 16,  17. 

Says  Mr.  Justice  McLean: 

"  The  plaintiff  in  error  contends,  that  as  the  lessors  of  the  plaintiff  have 
shown  no  paper  title  emanating  from  the  Government,  they  must  be  con- 
sidered as  trespassers ;  and  that  their  right  is  strictly  limited  to  the  pedis 


THE  LAAV  OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING.  365 

possessio  of  the  occupants  under  whom  they  claim.  That  a  mere  ti'es- 
passer  cannot  set  up  the  right  of  a  riparian  proprietor  unless  his  enclosures 
are  extended  so  as  to  include  the  alluvial  formation.     .     .     . 

"  The  position  assumed  by  the  plaintiff's  counsel,  that  a  mere  intruder 
is  limited  to  his  actual  possession ;  and  that  the  rights  of  a  riparian  pro- 
prietor do  not  attach  to  him,  is  correct.  He  can  have  no  rights  beyond  his 
possession.  The  doctrines  of  the  common  law  on  this  subject  have  been 
taken  substantially  from  the  civil  law. 

Wathins  v.  Holman  (1842),  16  Peters'  U.  S.  Sup.  C.  Rep.,  25, 
54,  55. 

Even  if  the  Dutch  had  entered  under  a  title  to  which  definite 
constructive  limits  would  otherwise  have  attached,  these  con- 
structive effects  could  not  operate  in  the  disputed  territory,  be- 
cause Spain  had  already  a  good  actual  and  constructive  possession. 

Says  Woodworth,  Justice: 

"Thus,  if  A  takes  a  lease  or  conveyance  for  a  lot  of  sixty-three  acres, 
and  improves  a  part,  his  possession  is  valid  for  the  whole  lot ;  not  on  the 
ground  of  having  title;  which  draws  the  possession  after  it;  until  an  actual 
adverse  possession  commences;  but  on  the  ground  of  a  claim  of  title  to  the 
whole  ;  and  a  possession  of  a  part,  which  constitutes  a  good  adverse  posses- 
sion. When  a  valid  possession  is  acquired  in  the  latter  mode,  it  cannot  be 
defeated  by  a  subsequent  entry  on  the  same  lot,  making  an  improvement  of 
a  part ;  and  obtaining  title  to  the  whole.  The  effect  of  such  subsequent  entry 
would  be  ;  to  give  the  person  so  entering  a  possession  of  the  part  actually 
occupied  and  improved ;  but  no  farther.  A  constructive  possession  to  the 
unimproved  part  of  the  lot,  would  remain  in  him  who  made  the  first  entry 
under  claim  of  title  and  improved  a  part." 

Jaclcson  v.   Vermilyea  (182?),  0  Co  wen's  Reports  (New  York), 
077,  G80. 

Moreover,   constructive    possession    cannot  be  inferred  even 

from  possession  under  a  deed  with  metes  and  bounds,  where  the 

acts  of  the  claimant  are  not  such  as  to  indicate  an  intention  to 

occupy  up  to  the  boundaries  of  his  deed,  and  still  more  where 

they  are  such  as  to  actually  negative  such  an  intention.    As  was 

well  said  by  Chief  Justice  Parker,  of  New  Hampshire: 

"  If  the  occupation  is  not  of  a  character  to  indicate  a  claim  which  may 
Ih'  coextensive  with  the  limits  of  the  deed,  then  the  principle  that  the  party 


366  THE  LAW  OP  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

is  presumed  to  enter  adversely  according  to  his  title,  has  no  sound  applica- 
tion, and  the  adverse  possession  may  be  limited  to  the  actual  occupation." 
Bailey  v.  darUton  (1841),  12  New  Hampshire  Reports,  9,  10. 
In  the  case  at  bar,  the  facts  indisputably  show  that,  even  if 
they  could  have  done  so,  the  Dntch  never  entered  with  any  view 
to  the  limits  now  claimed.  The  correspondence  alone  which  has 
been  recited  is  enough  to  show  this;  but  besides  the  coriespond- 
ence,  there  are  scattered  through  the  evidence  a  multitude  of 
acts,  which  will  be  noted  in  their  proper  place,  indicating  that 
the  Dutch  never  on  any  occasion  intended  to  hold  any  territory 
west  of  Moruca  or  west  of  the  falls  of  Cuyuni. 

(2)  Character  of  Possession. 

The  possession  must  be  actual,  not  only  as  to  the  extent  of 
the  territory  covered,  but  as  to  the  character  of  the  possession 
itself.  The  person  claiming  to  hold  adversely  must  claim  and 
exercise  control  as  an  owner.  Many  acts  may  be  performed  upon 
the  territory  of  another,  especially  wild  and  uncultivated  ter- 
ritory, which  do  not  imply  any  claim  of  title.  To  constitute  ad- 
verse holding,  the  acts  must  be  such  as  would  amount  to  a  dis- 
seisin of  the  true  owner. 

The  Case  of  Great  Britain  contains,  both  in  the  text  of  the 
Case  itself,  and  in  the  voluminous  appendices,  reference  to  a  great 
many  acts  which  were  performed  by  the  Dutch  on  the  territory 
in  dispute,  and  which  are  put  forward  as  evidence  of  possession. 
These  include  principally  the  transit  of  Dutchmen  over  the 
territory,  the  trading  of  the  Dutch  with  Spaniards  and  with 
Indians  therein,  the  maintenance  of  an  outlier  in  the  Cuyuni  for 
tradirjg  purposes,  and  the  maintenance  of  relations  with  the  In- 
dian tribes,  principally  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  slaves  by  the 
capture  of  Indians  of  other  tribes  and  for  the  purpose  of  inciting 
the  Indians  to  attacks  upon  the  Spaniards. 

It  is  claimed  that  these  acts  in  some  way  or  other  constitute  or 
indicate  possession  of  the  soil.    As  a  matter  of  fact,  they  indicate 


THE  LAW  OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING.  36T 

neither  settlement  nor  control,  nor  occupation  nor  territorial  sov- 
ereignty, nor  even  claim  of  sovereignty.  Most  of  them  are  acts 
which  even  in  civilized  countries  anybody  may  perform  without 
any  territorial  significance  whatever.  All  of  them  are  acts  which 
foreigners  are  frequently  permitted  to  do  even  in  a  comparatively 
civilized  country  as  well  as  natives,  and  still  more  when  the 
country  is  wild  and  unsettled. 

The  most  extravagant  of  these  claims  is  that  transit  over  a 
territory,  especially  such  a  territory  as  this,  constitutes  possession. 
Thus,  it  is  stated  in  the  British  Case  (p.  14)  that  the  Dutch,  at  a 
very  early  period,  had  "penetrated  far  into  the  interior;"  that 
"negro  tradeis  were  employed  by  the  Company  to  travel  among 
the  Indians  and  obtain  by  barter  the  products  of  the  country;" 
and  that  "in  1683  and  onwards  these  traders  are  mentioned  as 
periodically  visiting  the  Pariacot  Savannah." 

Suppose  that  they  did  all  this,  what  conclusion  is  to  be  drawn 
from  it?  Does  this  constitute — we  do  not  say  ' '  actual  settlement " 
or  "  political  control,"  as  prescribed  by  the  Treaty — but  does  it  con- 
stitute possession  in  any  sense?  The  fact  that  an  individual  sub- 
ject of  one  country  "  penetrates  "  the  wilderness  on  the  frontier 
of  another  does  not  give  his  country  any  rights  of  possession,  even 
though  he  be  an  agent  of  the  Government.  That  may  be  done  in 
civilized  countries,  and  much  more  so  in  territory  which  is  as  yet 
unsettled. 

So  also  with  trade  and  the  maintenance  of  trading  establish- 
ments. Trading  cannot  form  the  basis  of  adverse  holding  so  as 
to  create  a  territorial  title.  Neither  can  the  maintenance  of  trad- 
mg  establishments,  which  the  citizens  of  one  State  are  constantly 

intaining  on   the   territory  of   other  States,  nor  the  appoint- 

nt  of  agents  to  conduct  such  a  trade,  have  any  such  effect. 

The  relations  of  the  Dutch  with  the  Indians,  which  will  be 

lated  further  on,  were  inspired  by  the  necessity  which  is  imposed 
oil  every  colony  of  keeping  on  friendly  terms  with  the  savage  neigh- 

trs  on  its  frontier.     It  is  true  that  the  Dutch  promoted  wars  be- 


368  THE  LAW  OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

tween  these  savages  and  other  savages,  whom  when  taken  prison- 
ers by  the  first,  they  could  purchase  as  slaves.  It  is  true  that 
while  the  Dutch  never  attacked  the  Spanish  themselves,  they 
secretly  conspired  with  the  Indians  and  incited  the  latter  to  attack 
them,  and  particularly  the  Spanish  missions.  Nevertheless,  these 
do  not  constitute  acts  of  ownership  performed  upon  the  foreign 
territory.  As  far  as  acquisition  of  property  or  dominion  in  that 
State  is  concerned,  they  have  no  significance. 

So  of  alliances  and  understandings  with  Indians,  and  even 
grants  by  Indians — though  of  these  last  it  is  not  pretended  that 
any  existed.  Such  acts  on  the  part  of  natives  can  confer  no  terri- 
torial rights.     Says  Westlake  (Int.  Law,  p.  144): 

"We  haA^e  seen  that  natives  in  the  rudimentary  condition  supposed  have 
no  rights  under  international  law.  .  .  .  Hence,  it  follows  that  no  docu- 
ment in  which  such  natives  are  made  to  cede  sovereignty  over  any  territory 
can  be  exhibited  as  an  international  title.  ...  A  stream  cannot  rise 
higher  than  its  source,  and  the  right  to  establish  the  full  system  of  civil- 
ized government,  which  in  these  cases  is  the  essence  of  sovereignty,  cannot 
be  based  on  the  consent  of  those  who  at  the  utmost  know  but  a  few  of  the 
needs  which  such  a  government  is  intended  to  meet." 

IV.  Adverse  holding  must  be  exclusive. 

Under  the  well- recognized  principles  of  the  English  common 
law,  an  adverse  holding,  to  be  valid,  must  amount  to  a  disseisin  of 
the  true  owner.  The  term  "disseisin"  is  thus  defined  by  Coke 
upon  Littleton  (1536): 

"  A  disseisin  is  where  one  enters,  intending  to  usurp  the  possession 
and  to  oust  another  of  his  freehold." 

Says  Chief  Justice  Hosmer: 

"  By  adverse  possession  is  meant  a  possession  hostile  to  the  title  of 
another;  or,  in  other  words,  a  disseisin  of  the  premises ;  and  hy  a  disseisin 
is  understood  an  unwarrantable  entry,  putting  the  true  owner  out  of  liis 
seisin." 

Fretich  y.  Pearce,  8  Connecticut  Reports,  439,442  (1831), 
citing  Coke  upon  Littleton,  ]53Z>,  181. 


THE  LAW  OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING.  369 

In  order  to  sustain  a  claim  of  adverse  possession,  it  is  necessary 
that  the  true  owner  should  be  ousted;  in  other  words,  that  the 
possession  should  be  exercised  in  exclusion  of  the  true  owner. 

If  the  two  parties  are  settled  in  the  territory,  though  in  dif- 
ferent settlements,  the  adverse  holder  can  claim  only  the  part 
occupied  by  his  own  settlements.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  only 
place  outside  of  the  Essequibo  plantations  where  Dutch  settle- 
ment was  in  any  degree  exclusive,  or  even  where  there  w^as  any 
settlement,  was  in  Pomeroon,  and  this  existed  only  for  a  short 
time. 

Any  act  or  acts  upon  which  a  claim  of  an  adverse  holding  is 
based  must  have  the  element  of  exclusiveness. 
I    Thus,  the  miscellaneous  classes  of  acts  so  much  dwelt  upon  in 
the  British  Case,  upon  which  comment  has  already  been  made, 
namely,  transit,  trade,  relations  with  the  Indians,  capture  of  run- 
aways, etc. — if  these  acts  are  brought  forward  by  Great  Britain, 
to  sustain  a  claim  of  adverse  holding,  they  must  meet  the  test  of 
exclusiveness.     It  is  not  enough  to  show   that   the  Dutch  per- 
formed these  acts;  it  must  also  be  shown  that  the  Dutch  excluded 
their  performance  by  the  Spanish.     Insignificant  as  they  are  in 
any  aspect,  they  may  here  be  thrown  out  upon  this  point  alone, 
that  they  were  not  exclusive.     It  is  shown  again  and  again  in  the 
evidence  that  all  this  disputed  territory  was  not  only  as  free  to  the 
Spaniards  as  to  the  Dutch,  but  that  it  was  much  freer;  for  while 
the  Dutch  never  excluded  the  Spaniards,  the  Spaniards  did  on 
numerous  occasions  exclude  the  Dutch.     The  Dutch  themselves 
jtestify  that  Spanish  traders  were  all  through  this  territory;  that 
Spaniards  came  down  to  the  falls  of  the  Cuyuni  as  a  habitual 
[)ractice;  (B.  C,  II,  p.  68)  that  the  trade  in  the  Barima  between  the 
Jrinoco  and  Moruca  was  largely  conducted  by  Spaniards;  that  the 
^Spaniards  drove  out  the  settlers  on  the  La  Riviere  plantation,  in 
Barima,  and  confiscated  their  goods;  that  the  Spaniards  arrested 
Dutchmen  on  the  lower  Orinoco  and  in  Barima;  that  Spaniards 
)atrolled  the  interior  and  the  coast  rivers;  that  the  Spaniards  had 


370  THE  LAW  OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

alliances  and  understandings  with  the  Indians,  and  that  they 
drove  other  Indians  away  repeatedly,  and  on  other  occasions 
brought  them  in  to  their  settlements,  where  thousands  of  them 
were  governed,  instructed  and  civilized;  and  finally  that  so  far 
from  these  acts  being  performed  by  the  Dutch  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  Spaniards,  the  Dutch  were  frequently  excluded  by  the 
Spaniards  from  the  performance  of  them. 

There  is  not  a  single  instance  in  the  record  where  the  Dutch 
questioned  the  right  of  the  Spaniards  to  do  any  of  these  things. 

But  if  two  parties  may  be  said  to  be  in  possession  of  laud  at 
the  same  time,  he  is  held  to  be  the  true  owner  who  has  the  better 
title.  Where  they  are  in  possession  of  different  parts  of  the  land, 
the  party  having  the  better  title  is  held  to  be  in  constructive  pos- 
session of  all  that  is  not  actually  possessed  by  the  other. 

As  was  well  said  by  Chief  Justice  Marshall: 

"  The  defendant  also  relies  on  an  adversary  possession  in  himself  and 
those  under  whom  he  claims,  for  more  than  twenty  years.    His  proof  of  this 
fact  is  suflficient;  and  it  is  well  settled,  both  in  the  courts  of  Kentucky  and 
in  this  court,  that  a  possession  which  will  bar  an  ejectment,  is  also  a  bar  in 
equity.      But    in    this  case   the  plaintiffs    also   have  been  in  possession. 
.     .     .     Each  of  the  parties  then  has  held  possession  of  distinct  parts  of   i 
the  land  in  controversy.     In  this  state  of  things.,  it  is  well  settled  that  the   i 
party  having  the  better  right  is  in  constructive  possession  of  all  the  land  •  i 
not  occupied  in  fact  by  his  adversary.     If  then  the  plaintiffs  in  this  case  i 
have  the  better  title,  that  title  is  barred  by  the  possession  of  the  defendant, 
so  far  as  that  possession  was  actual,  but  not  farther." 

Hunt  V.  Wichliffe  (1829),  2  Peters'  [U.  S.  Sup.  Ct.]  Reports, 
201,  211,  212. 

So  also  Mr.  Justice  Story: 

"  Where  two  persons  are  in  possession  of  land  at  the  same  time,  under 
different  titles,  the  law  adjudges  him  to  have  the  seisin  of  the  estate  who 
has  the  better  title.  Both  cannot  be  seized,  and,  therefore,  the  seisin  fol- 
lows the  title  .  .  .  The  disseisin  of  Coburn  under  a  junior  title  did 
not  extend  beyond  the  limits  of  his  actual  occupancy." 

Barr  v.  Gratz  (1819),  4  Wheaton's  [U.  S.  Sup.  Ct.]  Reports, 
213,  223. 


THE  LAW  OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING.  371 

V.    The  Claim  of  Adverse  Holding  must  be  Definite. 

Courts  of  justice  universally  and  absolutely  refuse  to  consider 
loose  and  vague  claims  to  indefinite  areas  as  a  foundation  for 
adverse  holding. 

Thus  the  Supreme  Court  of  New  York: 

"Adverse  possession  must  be  marked  by  definite  boundaries  and  be 
regularly  continued  down  to  render  it  availing." 

Doe  V.  Campbell,  10  Johnson's  Reports.  47?. 

Says  Mr.  Justice  Spencer  : 

"  In  order  to  bar  the  recovery  of  a  plaintiff  who  has  title,  by  a  posses- 
sion in  the  defendant,  .  .  .  it  is  also  requisite  that  such  possession 
should  be  marked  by  definite  boundaries." 

Brandt  v.    Ogden  (1806),   1  Johnson's  New  York  Reports, 
156,  158. 

Says  Wood  worth,  Justice: 

Boundaries,  therefore,  including  the  premises  were  indispensable  in 
order  to  give  this  defense  the  semblance  of  plausibility.  The  defendants 
stand  on  the  same  ground  as  if  no  deed  had  been  produced;  and  then  the 
possession  cannot  extend  beyond  the  place  actually  occupied." 

Jackson  v.   Woodruff,  1  Cowen's  Reports,  276  (A.  D.  1823). 

See  also  Coverdale  v.  Charlton  (1878),  4  Q.  B.  Div.,  104,  per 
Bramwell,  L.  J.,  and  Bailey  v.  Carleton,  12  New  Hampshire  Re- 
'  ports,  9  (A.  D.  1841). 

It  is  therefore  well  settled  that  the  claim  of  title,  which  is  the 
inecessary  accompaniment  of  adverse  holding,  must  be  to  a  ter- 
ritory which  has  fixed  and  definite  boundaries.     When  the  boun- 
'daries  are  not  fixed  by  grant  they  are  fixed  by  the  limits  of  actual 
ioccupation.     There  was  not  even  a  semblance  of  occupation  by 
|the  Dutch  west  of  the  Moruca  and  the  falls  of  Cuyuni. 
'      It  is  one  of  the  most  singular  facts  in  the  present  case  that, 
i (While  it  is  claimed  that  a  title  has  been  established  in  the  Dutch 
imd  their  successors,  the  British,  by  an  adverse  holding  established 
>rior  to  1814,  there  is  not  in  the  whole  history  of  the  disputed  ter- 
•itory,  (at  least  up  to  1839,)  and  of  the  Dutch  colony  which  adjoined 


372  THE  LAW  OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING 

it  and  of  the  Spanish  colony  which,  as  Venezuela  claims,  included  it, 
nor  in  that  of  the  two  countries  to  which  these  two  colonies  respect- 
ively belonged,  as  set  forth  in  the  vast  mass  of  evidence  annexed  tc 
the  Cases  presented  by  the  respective  parties,  any  definition  of  th< 
boundaries  of  the  territory  claimed  by  the  Dutch.  During  the  on( 
hundred  and  sixty-six  years  that  this  situation  had  lasted,  from 
the  date  of  the  Treaty  of  Munster,  the  Dutch  never  undertook  tc 
state  the  limits  of  their  claim.  Not  until  1S40,  after  the  Dutch 
had  long  disappeared  from  the  territory  and  after  the  British  hac 
been  in  possession  for  nearly  thirty  years,  was  any  definitior 
made  of  the  boundaries  which  are  the  present  subject  of  claim, 
and  the  line  put  forward  at  this  late  date,  nearly  two  centuries 
after  the  Treaty  of  Munster,  was  a  pure  figment  of  the  imagina 
tion,  assumed  by  the  caprice  of  the  person  employed  to  make 
a  survey,  and  without  reference  in  fact  to  any  question  of  settle 
ment,  or  political  control,  or  possession,  or  occupation  of  any  kinc 
whatever.  This  recent  invention  of  the  geographer  Schomburgk  if 
the  only  line  that  is  talked  about  in  the  British  Case,  except  indeed 
that  still  more  recent  invention,  known  as  the  "  Extreme  British 
Claim."  There  is  no  statement  or  suggestion  in  that  Case,  or  in 
the  Counter-Case,  as  to  what  the  boundaries  of  fifty  years'  adverse 
possession  are.  There  is,  of  course,  no  statement  that  there  had 
been  fifty  years'  possession  up  to  the  Schomburgk  line,  for  such 
a  statement  would  be  entirely  destitute  of  foundation.  We  are 
left  still  in  absolute  ignorance  as  to  what  territory  is  claimed  by  an 
adverse  holding. 

Of  course,  the  Dutch  never  knew  or  imagined  any  such  line  as 
that  which  now  appears  as  the  Schomburgk  line,  or  even  thalj 
which  was  published  by  the  British  authorities  as  the  Schom* 
burgk  line  from  1840  to  1886.     Even  in  those  innumerable  discui- 
sions  and  suggestions  between  the  Company  and  Director-Generrfl 
Storm     recited    in    the    last    chapter    there    was    nothing    that] 
approached  anywhere  near  this  line.     At  various  times,  in  tl 
coast  territory,  these  suggestions  name  the  Moruca,  the  Waini,! 


THE  LAW  OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING.  373 

the  Baiiraa  and  the  line  of  D'Anville,  which  excluded  the  Barima 
and  which  was  entirely  on  this  side  of  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco. 
In  the  interior  territory  no  point  or  points  were  ever  suggested  as 
a  boundary.  One  may  read  the  whole  of  the  Company's  corre- 
spondence from  beginning  to  end,  with  the  map  lying  before  him, 
and  yet  be  absolutely  unable  to  make  a  line  anywhere  on  that 
map  that  shows  the  boundary  between  the  two  territories  as 
the  Director- General  or  the  Company  at  any  time  thought  either 
that  it  was  or  that  it  ought  to  be.  It  is  not  only  the  variety  of 
his  suggestions,  but  their  vagueness,  which  is  to  be  noticed.  He 
never  speaks  of  a  line  except  the  line  in  D'Anville's  map,  and  he 
evidently  only  speaks  of  that  line  because  he  finds  it  in  the  map. 
Except  for  its  presence  in  the  map  it  represents  nothing.  More- 
over, he  no  sooner  refers  to  it,  than  he  makes  a  suggestion  incon- 
sistent with  it.  The  boundary  claim,  so  far  as  it  was  Dutch, 
therefore,  fails  in  this  most  essential  particular,  that  its  extent 
was  never  definitely  ascertained. 

VI.  Adverse  Holding  must  be  under  a  Claim  of  Right. 

The  mere  possession  of  the  land  of  another  for  twenty  years  is 
not  enough  to  give  title.  A  person  coming  upon  the  land  of 
another  and  taking  possession  of  it  is  a  mere  trespasser,  and  his 
trespass,  though  continued  for  the  length  of  time  prescribed  by 
the  statute,  will  not  give  him  a  title  unless  his  possession  is  in 
pursuance  of  a  claim  to  the  ownership  of  the  land. 
I         According  to  PhiUimore  (Int.  Law,  3rd  ed.,  vol.  I,  p.  32Y): 

"  Dominion  is  acquired  by  the  combination  of  the  two  elements  of  fact 
'i    and  intention." 


The  intent  must  be  to  exclude  the  true  owner.     A  transient 
entry  upon  land  for  a  temporary  purpose  can  never  amount  to  an 
;  ouster  of  the  true  owner.     In  such  case,  there  is  no  intent  to  hold 
I  the  land. 


I 


374  THE  LAW  OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

Says  Mr.  Justice  Story,  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States: 

"  An  ouster  or  disseisin  is  not  indeed  to  be  presumed  from  the  mere  fact 
of  sole  possession;  but  it  may  be  proved  by  such  possession,  accompanied 
with  a  notorious  claim  of  an  exclusive  right." 

Ricarcly.  Tf/Z^taws,  7  Wheaton's   [U.    S    Sup.  Ct]  Reports, 
59,  121. 

Says  Mr.  Justice  Baldwin,  of  the  same  Court: 

"  An  entry  by  one  man  on  the  land  of  another,  is  an  ouster  of  the  legal 
possession  arising  from  the  title  or  not,  according  to  the  intention  with 
which  it  is  done;  if  made  under  claim  and  color  of  right,  it  is  an  ouster; 
otherwise,  it  is  a  mere  trespass;  in  legal  language,  the  intention  guides  the 
entry,  and  fixes  its  character.''^ 

Ewing  v.  Burnet,  11  Peters'  [U.  S.  Sup.  Ct.]  Reports,  41,  52. 

In  a  later  case  in  the  same  court,  Mr.  Justice  Miller  says: 

"  We  think  this  law  is  too  well  settled  to  need  argument  to  sustain  it. 
There  must  be  title  somewhere  to  all  land  in  this  country.  Either  in  the 
Government,  or  in  some  one  deriving  title  from  the  Government,  State  or 
National.  Any  one  in  possession,  with  no  claim  to  the  land  whatever  must  in 
presumption  of  law  he  in  possession  in  amity  with  and  in  subservience  to  that 
title.  Where  there  is  no  claim  of  right,  the  possession  cannot  be  adverse  to 
the  true  title." 

Harvey  v.  Tyler,  2  Wallace's  \\J.  S.  Sup.  Ct.]  Reports,  328, 
349. 

If  there  is  no  claim  of  right,  there  can  be  no  adverse  possession. 
Under  such  circumstances,  it  is  in  law  deemed  to  be  a  possession 
under  the  true  owner.  This  principle  has  been  well  expressed  by 
Chief  Justice  Beck,  of  Iowa.     He  says: 

''An  essential  ingredient  of  adverse  possession  is  a  claim  of  right  hostile 
to  the  true  owner.  So,  if  one  enter  upon  the  laud  of  another,  without  any 
color  of  title  or  claim  of  right,  the  possession  thus  acquired  is  not  adverse, 
but  the  possessor  will  be  deemed  by  the  law  to  hold  under  the  legal  ownor. 
In  such  a  case  no  length  of  possession  will  make  it  adverse.     .    .     . 

'•  The  quo  animo  in  which  the  possession  was  taken  and  held  is  the  test 
of  its  adverse  character.  The  inquiry,  therefore,  as  to  the  intention  of  the 
possessor,  is  essential  in  order  to  determine  the  nature  of  his  possession,  and 


THE  LAW  OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING.  375 

before  his  possession  may  be  pronounced  adverse  it  must  be  found  that  he 
intended  to  hold  in  hostility  to  the  true  owner.'* 

Gruhe  v.  Wells  (1871),  34  Iowa  Reports,  148,  149. 

Of  course  a  holding  by  consent  cannot  be  in  hostility  to  the 
true  owner,  but  the  possession  must  be  in  subservience  to  the 
true  title. 

Says  Mr.  Justice  Wells: 

"  A  mere  possession  of  land  of  itself  does  not  necessarily  imply  a  claim 
of  right.  The  tenant  may  hold  in  subjection  to  the  lawful  owner,  not  in- 
tending to  deny  his  right  or  to  assert  a  dominion  over  the  fee.  But  the 
terras  open,  notorious,  adverse  and  exclusive,  when  applied  to  the  mode  in 
which  one  holds  lands,  must  be  understood  as  indicating  a  claim  of  right. 
They  constitute  an  appropriate  definition  of  a  disseizin,  and  the  acts  which 
they  describe  will  have  that  effect  if  not  controlled  or  explained  by  other 
testimony. 

"  An  adverse  possession  entirely  excludes  the  idea  of  a  holding  by  con- 
sent." 

Winthrop  v.  Benson  (1850),  31  Maine  Reports,  381,  384. 

The  general  principles  requiring  a  claim  of  right  in  order  to 
make  adverse  holding  as  between  individuals  apply  with  still 
greater  force  where  the  question  is  one  as  between  States.  In 
the  case  of  individuals,  the  question  is  only  of  private  title  or 
ownership;  in  the  case  of  States,  the  question  is  one  of  public 
title,  dominion  or  sovereignty. 

A  private  individual  entering  upon  the  land  of  another  cannot 
establish  a  claim  of  adverse  holding  unless  both  the  ouster  and  the 
possession  are  under  a  claim  of  right.  Nor  can  a  State  endeavor- 
ing to  acquire  a  title  by  adverse  holding  establish  it  unless  both 
the  ouster  and  the  possession  are  likewise  made  under  a  claim 
of  right. 

In  the  case  of  private  holdings,  the  act  of  the  private  holder 
sometimes  speaks  for  itself,  and  may  be  enough  without  anything 
else  to  give  notice  of  a  claim  of  right;  but  in  the  case  of  States, 
where  public  title  is  concerned,  the  acts  of  private  individuals  on 
the  territory  which  is  sought  to  be  held  adversely  show  nothing 


I 


376  THE  LAW  OP  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

with  reference  to  the  State  of  which  they  are  subjects;  no  pre- 
sumption can  arise  from  anything  they  do  as  to  the  claim  of  the 
State.  The  fact  that  a  squatter,  or  any  number  of  squatters, 
estabhsh  themselves  upon  the  territory  of  another  State  does  not 
indicate  a  claim  of  right  sufficient  to  establish  even  a  private  title; 
much  less  does  it  indicate  a  claim  on  the  part  of  the  State  to 
which  they  belong  to  assert  a  public  title.  The  State  itself  must 
take  some  action  in  reference  to  the  territory  so  claimed.  Unless 
it  does  so  by  exclusive  acts  of  dominion  necessarily  implying  a 
claim  of  right,  the  occupation  cannot  be  deemed  to  have  been 
made  under  such  a  claim;  and  no  matter  how  long  it  continues,  it 
is  void  and  ineffectual  as  establishing  a  public  title  adversely  to 
the  prior  sovereign. 

Nor  is  it  enough  that  the  State  seeking  to  acquire  title  through 
the  acts  of  its  citizens  should  extend  its  jurisdiction  merely  over 
such  citizens,  because  jurisdiction  may  be  personal  in  its  character, 
and  may  follow  the  citizen  wherever  he  goes.  The  jurisdiction 
which  the  adverse  State  maintains  must  be  distinctly  a  territoiial 
jurisdiction,  one  which  implies  dominion  or  claina  of  dominion  over 
the  soil  and  all  who  dwell  thereon,  whether  its  own  subjects,  or 
natives  of  the  territory,  or  foreigners  sojourning  there. 

If  the  acts  performed  by  the  Dutch  on  this  territory  had  been 
much  more  strongly  indicative  of  possession  than  they  were,  they 
would  not,  in  the  absence  of  a  claim  of  right,  amount  to  a 
disseisin  of  Spain.  As  has  been  several  times  suggested,  there 
is  nothing  in  these  acts  to  indicate  possession.  There  was  no 
settlement  and  there  was  no  control  in  the  territory  in  question. 
If  there  had  been,  they  might  possibly  have  been  of  such  a  char- 
acter as,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  to  have  im- 
plied a  claim  of  right,  because  such  a  claim  may  be  inferred 
from  the  facts,  if  the  facts  sufficiently  warrant  it.  But  there 
being  no  settlement  and  no  control,  the  British  Case  is  com- 
pelled to  fall  back  upon  acts  of  such  slight  significance  as 
trading,  the  establishment  of  relations  with  the  Indians,  hunt-    j 

'1 


THE  LAW  OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING.  377 

ing,  fishing,  transit,  the  capture  of  runaway  slaves,  and 
the  like.  Such  acts  can  never  be  said  to  indicate  a  claim 
of  right,  because  they  are  perfectly  consistent  with  ownership 
in  another.  They  have  no  territorial  quality.  The  supervision 
which  the  Dutch  authorities  exercised  over  them  was  merely  a 
supervision  to  secure  the  profits  of  the  trade,  or  to  control  the 
movements  of  the  "free  colonists,"  or  to  insure  the  colony 
against  Indian  attack.  There  is  not  one  of  them  that  constitutes 
in  any  sense  an  act  of  territorial  jurisdiction,  whether  it  was 
performed  by  colonists  or  by  the  old  negro  traders  or  by  the 
Outliers  or  Outrunners  employed  by  the  Company.  They  are 
void  of  significance  in  this  inquiry,  for  the  reason,  if  for  no  other, 
that  they  import  no  claim  of  territorial  sovereignty,  and  therefore 
no  claim  of  right. 

In  the  present  case,  not  only  do  the  acts  related  fall  short  of 
implying  any  claim,  but  there  is  a  mass  of  evidence  of  the  most 
significant  character  which  absolutely  negatives  the  existence  of 
such  a  claim. 

The  history  of  the  deliberations  of  the  West  India  Company 

on  the  boundary  question  has  already  been  dwelt  upon  at  length. 

It  is  enough  to  say  here  that  it  shows  repeated  applications  on 

the  part  of  the  Director-General  of  the  colony  to  the  Company  for 

instructions  as  to  the  boundary  which  he  was  to  claim.     It  shows 

that  these  applications  took  the  form  of  earnest  appeals,  urgently 

demanding  an  answer.     It  shows  that  the  request  for  instructions 

was  based  on  a  critical  condition  of  affairs  in  the  colony,  namely, 

the  fact  that  the  Spanish  authorities  were  actively  enlarging  their 

actual  settlement  of  the  territory  in  which  the  Dutch  had  been 

travelling  and  trading  to   the  Orinoco  and  in  which  dwelt  the 

li  Indians  who  carried  on  the  slave  trade  and  otherwise  contributed 

i[  to  promote  the  interests  of  the  traders  of  Essequibo.     It  shows 

l|  that  the  Director- General  looked  with  the  gravest  apprehension 

li  upon  the  erection  of  new  Spanish  settlements  in  the  territory, 

''  chiefly,  no  doubt,  because  it  would  reduce  the  facilities  and  profits 


3T8  THE  LAW  OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

of  the  trade  there  maintained.  It  shows,  finally,  that  the  Director- 
General  desired  to  check  this  development  of  Spanish  settlement 
in  the  territory  by  setting  up  a  claim  to  dominion  over  it,  or  over 
some  part  of  it,  but  that  he  required  the  authority  of  the  Com- 
pany to  do  so,  and  he  also  required  information  as  to  what 
territory,  if  any,  the  Company  claimed. 

What  did  the  Company  do  under  these  circumstances?  As  to 
the  location  of  the  boundary,  they  refused  to  give  any  instructions 
whatever.  They  stated  the  result  of  their  nine  years'  deliberations 
and  investigations  in  a  letter  which  showed  that  they  were  with- 
out result.  They  stated  in  terms  that  they  were  unable  to  form 
an  opinion  upon  the  subject,  and  they  calmly  referred  to  the 
boundary  question  between  New  Netherland  and  New  England 
as  the  only  fact  in  the  history  of  the  New  World  bearing  on  the 
subject. 

It  would  seem  to  be  impossible  to  conceive  of  a  territorial  claim 
where  the  party  interested  in  making  it  was  so  entirely  in  the  dark 
as  to  what  he  was  claiming.  If  the  West  India  Company  never 
could  determine  what  territory  they  should  claim,  they  cannot  be 
said  to  have  made  a  claim,  because  the  idea  of  a  claim  to  terri- 
tory by  one  who  does  not  know  what  territory  he  is  claiming 
is  a  contradiction  in  terms.  Yet  the  fact  is  quite  certain  from 
these  letters  that  whatever  territorial  extension  the  Director- 
General  may  have  thought  the  interests  of  the  Company  de- 
manded, he  never  was  able  to  reach  any  conclusion  as  to  the  teF- 
ritory  which  should  be  claimed.  Certainly  he  had  no  knowledge 
of  the  limits;  nor,  as  appears  from  the  letters  of  the  Company, 
were  they  ever  able  to  inform  him.  Moreover,  the  correspond- 
ence itself  plainly  shows  that  there  was  no  claim  of  right,  and  no 
intention  to  claim  as  of  right.  The  Director- General's  suggestions 
were  not  in  the  direction  of  claiming  on  grounds  of  right,  but  of 
claiming  upon  grounds  of  expediency,  in  other  words,  of  simple  ter- 
ritorial extension;  and  the  Company,  while  they  would  have  been 
willing  to  claim  anything  for  which  they  could  have  found  a  basis 


THE  LAW  OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING.  379 

of  right,  being  unable  to  find  such  a  basis,  refused  to  assert  any 
claim. 

But  they  did  more  than  this.  Having  stated  that  they  could 
come  to  no  conclusion  on  the  question  of  boundary  claim,  they  ex- 
pressly en  joined  upon  the  Director-General  that  he  should  not  raise 
the  question,  and  should  make  no  open  or  direct  opposition  to  the 
extension  of  the  Spanish  settlements.  The  Company  had  received 
his  hint,  ingeniously  conveyed,  in  his  letter  of  December  7,  1746 
(B.  C,  II,  p.  46),  that  the  Indians  were  much  aggrieved  at  the  Span- 
ish settlements,  since  they  closed  the  slave  traffic  in  that  direction, 
and  that  they  expressed  a  desire  to  surprise  the  one  last  estab- 
lished and  level  it  to  the  ground,  "  which  I,  not  without  trouble, 
have  prevented."  They  had  received  a  further  hint  from  him,  in 
his  letter  of  March  25, 1747  (B.  C,  II,  p.  49):  "I  should  already  long 
ago  have  removed  and  demolished  the  first  fort  up  in  Cuyuni 
{which  even  now  is  easy  of  accomplishment  on  my  part  through  the 
Caribs),  if  I  were  but  rightly  conscious  how  far  the  limits  of  your 
Honours'  territory  extend," and  they  had  answered,  in  the  follow- 
ing September  (B.  C,  II,  p.  51),  that  they  had  started  the  inquiry 
about  the  boundary,  adding  this  remarkable  instruction,  which 
has  a  double  significance,  in  view  of  the  letters  that  preceded  it: 
*'  Nevertheless,  if  in  the  meantime  you  can,  by  indirect  means, 
and  without  yourself  appearing  therein,  bring  it  about  that  the 
Spaniards  be  dislodged  from  the  forts  and  buildings  which, 
according  to  your  assertions,  they  have  made  upon  the  terri- 
tory of  the  Company,  and  can  prevent  them  from  spreading 
I  further  in  that  quarter,  you  will  do  well  to  accomplish  this," — an 
instruction  whose  meaning  is  evident,  and  which  Storm  showed  ' 
i  that  he  understood,  by  his  statement  in  the  following  year  (B.  C, 
I II,  p.  58)  that  "  I  intend  to  tell  the  Chiefs  of  the  Indians,  when  they 
j  come  to  me,  that  I  can  provide  no  redress  for  them  and  that  they 
15  must  take  measures  for  their  own  security.  Then  I  feel  assured 
that  in  a  short  time  no  Spaniard  will  be  visible  any  more  above  in 
i  Cuyuni." 


380  THE  LAW  OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

The  Dii-ector-General  fully  understood  why  the  Company 
were  unwilling  to  make  any  claim,  and  why,  instead  of  openly 
opposing  the  extension  of  Spanish  settlements,  they  covertly 
aimed  at  their  destruction  hy  means  of  the  Indians.  In  his  report 
in  1750  (B.  C,  II,  p.  67),  he  says:  "  Because  the  hmits  are  un- 
known, we  dare  not  openly  oppose  them." 

Finally,  the  Company,  in  their  remarkable  letter  of  January  6, 
1755  (B.  C,  II,  p.  101),  which  sums  up  the  boundary  question,  and 
explains  why  they  cannot  reach  a  conclusion,  warned  the  Direc- 
tor-General against  attempting  to  define  the  Company's  territory 
and  disputing  about  its  jurisdiction,  for  the  very  reason  that  the 
Company  cannot  find  any  ground  for  asserting  a  territorial  claim. 

Mindful  of  these  instructions,  the  Director-General,  when  in 
1758  he  wrote  his  protest  to  the  Spanish  Governor  in  reference  to 
the  capture  of  the  Guyuni  post(B.  C,  II,  p.  154),  carefully  refrained 
from  suggesting  that  any  question  of  territorial  jurisdiction  was 
involved  in  the  attack,  and  left  it  entirely  as  an  unwarranted  mo- 
lestation of  the  persons  of  Dutch  subjects.  The  only  allusion  to 
territorial  rights  which  he  allowed  was  in  the  letter  of  his  irre- 
sponsible subordinate,  which  was  returned  unopened. 

Under  these  circumstances,  it  is  evident  not  only  that  the 
Dutch  made  no  claim  of  right,  but  that  they  intended  to  make  no 
claim,  and  that  they  expressly  instructed  their  Managing  Agent 
to  make  no  claim,  with  which  instruction  he  complied;  and  their 
reason  for  doing  this  was  the  best  of  all  possible  reasons,  namely, 
that  they  had  investigated  the  subject  and  that  they  could  not 
find   that  they  had  any  claim  at  all. 

The  evidence  upon  which  these  facts  rest  is  incontrovertible. 
It  is  the  best  evidence  that  could  possibly  be  had,  namely,  the  vi  ry 
instructions,  with  the  reasons  for  them,  which  the  Company  gave 
to  the  Director-General  on  the  spot.  After  the  most  careful  in- 
vestigation, extending  over  nine  years,  they  failed  utterly  to  reach 
a  conclusion.  As  admissions,  the  letters  of  Storm  and  of  the 
Company  are  conclusive.     As  evidence  of  what  was  in  the  minds 


THE  LAW  OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING.  381 

of  the  parties, — of  that  "intention"  of  which  the  judi- 
cial authorities  speak  in  connection  with  adverse  holding,— they 
are  hkewise  conclusive;  for  they  lay  hare  the  inner  workings  of 
the  minds  of  those  who  conducted  the  Company's  affairs,  and  in 
such  a  way  as  to  forhid  any  idea  of  intention  to  claim  any  parti- 
cular limits. 

It  would  be  impossible  to  find  a  more  absolute  negation  of  all 
( laim  of  right  than  is  to  be  seen  in  this  correspondence  between 
tlie  West  India  Company  and  the  Director  General.  But  there 
were  other  facts  which  negative  a  claim  of  right.  There  was  the 
express  admission  of  Beekman,  in  connection  with  the  horse 
trade,  at  the  beginning  of  the  century,  that  the  territory  up  in 
Cuyuni,  that  is  to  say,  beyond  the  falls,  was  Spanish  territory, 
and  his  submission  and  acquiescence  when  such  a  right  was  as- 
serted by  prohibitions  against  Dutch  trade.  There  was  the  sug- 
gestion made  by  Storm  in  17G6  to  the  Spanish  Governor  that  the 
latter  should  deal  with  the  Dutch  outlaws  in  Bariraa.  There  was 
the  entire  absence  of  any  exercise  of  jurisdiction  or  control  by  the 
Dutch  over  the  territory  west  of  Monica  and  above  the  falls  of 
the  Cuyuni,  and  entire  acquiescence,  without  a  word  of  pro- 
test, in  the  assertion  of  Spanish  jurisdiction  by  innumerable  acts 
in  the  same  territory.  These  matters  belong  more  particularly  to 
j  the  discussion  of  the  question  of  political  control.  They  are  only 
mentioned  here  as  proof  of  the  absence  of  a  claim  of  right. 

On  two  occasions,  and  two  only,  did  the  Dutch  undertake  to 
make  anything  resembling  a  claim.     These  were  in  the  two  Re- 
I  monstrances  of  1759  and  1769,  already  considered  in  the  chapter 
I  on   the   Dutch   Claim.     The    first    of    these    was    so    expressed 
I  that  it  could  hardly  be  considered  a  claim  at  all.     It  was  confined 
to  saying  that  the  tributaries  of  the  Essequibo  had  been  "pos- 
!  sessed  from  time  immemorial,"  and  that  the  Company  "in  virtue 
I  of  that  possession  have  always  considered  the  said  river  of  Cu- 
yuni as  a  domain  of  this  state."    It  protested  against  the  attack 
I  on  the  Postholder  and  the  destruction  of  the  post;  but  such  a 


382  THE  LAW  OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

protest  might  have  been  made,  had  the  post  been  situated  on  the 
other  side  of  the  Orinoco;  for  the  protest  was  not  inconsistent 
with  the  admission  of  Spanish  sovereignty  over  the  territory. 
Finally,  it  invited  a  discussion  to  bring  about  a  dehmitation  of 
frontiers.  Such  a  statement  as  this  cannot  be  said  to  be  a  claim 
of  right.  In  considering  its  force  and  effect  in  the  present  con- 
troversy, we  must  read  it  in  connection  with  the  correspondence 
of  the  Company  and  their  officers  which  lay  behind  it,  and  we  must 
interpret  it  in  the  light  of  this  correspondence.  Viewed  in  this 
light,  it  is  clear  that  the  Company  were  unwilling  to  make  a  posi- 
tive claim,  because,  first,  they  felt  that  they  had  no  ground  of 
claim,  and,  secondly,  if  they  had  a  ground  they  could  not  tell  to 
what  territory  it  extended.  They  therefore  sent  their  paper  for 
what  it  was  worth,  and  the  paper  was  well  called  a  "Remon- 
strance," for  it  was  nothing  more.  Such  as  it  was,  however,  it 
was  withdrawn  ten  years  later. 

The  Company  had  hoped,  when  they  made  their  first  Remon- 
strance, that  they  might  shortly  discover  some  facts  that  would 
justify  a  claim,  and  it  was  in  this  hope  that  they  had  invited  a 
discussion  of  the  boundary  question,  and  had  written  repeated 
letters  to  the  Director-General  asking  for  further  information. 
This  further  information  they  had  never  been  able  to  get,  and 
when  the  occasion  arose  for  them  to  "  remonstrate  "  a  second 
time  about  fugitive  slaves  and  other  matters,  they  referred  to 
Spanish  settlements  which  they  understood  were  placed  in  the 
Cuyuni,  and  referred  to  them  solely  for  the  purpose  of  disclaim- 
ing any  territorial  rights  in  that  neighborhood;  as  a  result  of 
which  the  only  effect  of  the  second  Remonstrance  on  territorial 
claims  in  the  Cuyuni  was  that  it  admitted  the  Spanish  claim  to 
the  Cuyuni  Valley  in  general  and  denied  the  Company's  pre- 
vious position  that  "  they  had  always  considered  the  said  river  of 
Cuyuni  as  a  domain  of  the  state."  This  left  the  matter  substan- 
tially as  if  no  claim  had  ever  been  made. 

They  did,  however,  make  a  specific  claim  in  the  second  Re- 


THE  LAW  OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING.  383 

monstrance  to  territory  of  the  State  ''extending  from  the  river 
Marowyn  to  beyond  the  river  Waini." 

This  is  the  only  intelligible  claim  ever  made  by  the  Dutch 
Government  or  by  the  West  India  Company.  It  may,  of  course, 
be  assumed  to  state  the  full  limit  of  the  claim,  and  thus  included 
only  the  left  bank  of  the  Waini. 

With  the  exception  of  this  claim  to  Waini— and  the  important 
fact  is  to  be  noticed  that  this  is  only  a  claim  along  the  coast  to  the 
mouth  of  the  Waini  -there  is  nothing  to  indicate  a  claim  of  right 
on  the  part  of  the  Dutch  to  the  territory  in  dispute,  and  there  is 
everything  to  indicate  the  contrary.  It  is  even  a  question 
whether,  in  view  of  the  conflicting  suggestions  put  forth  in  the 
correspondence,  any  importance  can  be  attached  to  the  claim  to 
the  Waini.  This  claim,  however,  was  likewise  abandoned,  as 
appears  from  the  often-quoted  statement  of  Governor-General 
Van  Grovestins  in  1794  — and  it  cannot  be  quoted  too  often — in 
which  he  names  the  Moruka  as  the  line  (V.  C.  II,  248)  '*  which  up 
to  now  has  been  maintained  to  be  the  boundary  of  our  territory 
with  that  of  Spain." 

Two  incidental  points  are  to  be  noticed  in  connection  vv^ith  the 
requirement  of  a  claim  of  right.  These  relate  (1)  to  the  time  of 
making  the  claim,  and  (2)  to  the  extent  of  the  claim. 

(1.)  The  time  of  making  the  claim. 

The  claim  of  right  must  be  contemporaneous  with  the  adverse 
holding.  If  it  begins  without  a  claim  of  right,  it  is  not  an  adverse 
holding,  and  a  subsequent  claim  of  right  will  not  refer  back  to 
the  beginning  of  the  possession.  Nor  can  prescription  run  after 
the  claim  is  actually  or  by  implication  withdrawn. 

Adverse  holding  can  only  begin  with  an  ouster  or  disseisin  ac- 
companied by  a  claim  of  right.  If  there  is  no  claim  of  right  at 
the  time  of  the  first  entry,  the  entry  is  no  ouster,  and  he  who  so 
enters  holds,  in  contemplation  of  law,  in  subservience  to  the  legal 
title.     It  follows  that  one  may  be  in  possession  for  any  number  of 


384  THE  LAW  OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

years,  but  such  a  possession  is  not  an   adverse  possession  until  a 
claim  of  right  is  set  up,  and  the  duration  of  the  possession  anterior 
to  the  setting  up  of  the  claim   is  immaterial.    This  doctrine  has 
been  repeatedly  affirmed. 
Says  Mr.  Justice  Spencer: 

"  III  order  to  bar  the  recovery  of  a  plaintiff  who  has  title,  by  a  possession 
in  the  defendant,  strict  proof  has  always  been  required,  not  only  that  the 
first  jwssession  was  taken  under  a  claim  hostile  to  the  real  owner,  but  that 
such  liostihty  has  existed  on  the  part  of  the  succeeding  tenants.*' 

Brandt  v.    Ogden  (1806),  1   Johnson's  New  York  Reports, 
156,  158. 

Says  Mr.  Justice  Baldwin,  in  a  case  already  cited: 

"It  suffices  for  this  purpose"  (adverse  possession)  "  that  visible  and 
notorious  acts  of  ownership  are  exercised  over  the  premises  in  controversy 
for  twenty- one  years,  after  an  entry  under  claim  and  color  of  title." 

Ewi7ig  V.  Burnet  (1837),  11  Peters'  [U.  S.  Sup.  Ct]  Reports 
41-52. 

We  have  seen  from  our  examination  of  the  Dutch  remon- 
strances that  their  alleged  claims,  which  could  only  be  construed 
as  relating  to  portions  of  the  territory  now  claimed  by  Great 
Britain,  were  made  in  such  qualified  terms  that  they  could  hardly 
be  considered  as  claims  at  all;  that,  such  as  they  were,  they  were 
in  great  part  withdrawn;  that  the  Dutch  never  made  any  entry 
thereunder;  and  that  of  the  territory  which  it  is  alleged  they 
claimed  they  had  no  possession. 

We  have  seen  further  that  the  acts  and  papers  of  the  Dutcl 
during  the  110  or  120  years  before  these  Remonstrances  expressly 
admitted  Spanish  dominion  in  the  Cuyuni  and  in  Barima. 

It  may  be  worth  while  to  notice  in  this  connection  that  n( 
claim  of  right  was  ever  made  by  the  English  until  long  after 
their  acquisition  of  British  Guiana.  Even  after  the  Schomburgk 
line  had  been  laid  down,  the  British  Government  in  1841  expressly, 
disclaimed  it  as  a  line  of  right,  and  it  was  not  until  later  that 
there  could  be  said  to  have  been  any  such  claim  in  existence. 


THE  LAW  OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING.  385 

(2.)  The  extent  of  the  claim. 

Not  only  must  a  claim  of  right  be  contemporaneous  with  the 
entry  in  order  to  constitute  an  ouster,  but  it  must  be  co-extensive 
with  the  entry.  An  entry  upon  a  tract  of  land,  where  there  is  a 
claim  of  right  only  to  a  part  of  the  tract,  even  though  there  may 
be  actual  possession  of  the  whole,  constitutes  an  ouster  or  disseisin 
only  of  that  part,  and  consequently  an  adverse  possession  only  of 
that  part.  The  adverse  holding  cannot  be  larger  than  the  claim 
of  right.  A  holding  that  is  less  than  the  claim  is  limited  to  the 
holding;  a  holding  that  is  greater  than  the  claim  is  limited  to  the 
claim.  Possession  outside  of  the  limits  of  the  claim  is  not  adverse 
possession. 

Says  Chief  Justice  Parker,  in  a  case  already  cited: 

"  And  where  the  possession  was  in  a  township,  or  other  large  tract  of 
laud,  which  had  never  been  divided  into  lots  for  settlement,  no  particular 
claim,  beyond  the  actual  occupation  would  be  indicated,  and  of  course  no 
notice  of  any  such  claim  of  title  should  be  presumed." 

Bailey  v.  Carleton  (lb41),  13  New  Hampshire  Reports,  9,  IG. 

Says  Mr.  Justice  Story,  also  in  a  case  cited  above,  referring  to 
the  claim  of  a  life  tenant: 

*'  His  title  being  evidenced  only  by  possession,  it  must  be  limited  in  its 
extent  to  the  claim  which  he  asserted." 

Ricard  v.    Williams   (182<J),  7  Wheaton's   [U.  S.  Sup.  Ct.] 
Reports,  59,  111. 

Applying  this  principle  to  the  present  case,  it  establishes  that 
no  matter  what  acts  of  occupation  the  Dutch  may  have  per- 
formed in  the  territory  in  question,  the  effect  of  these  acts  as 
constituting  an  adverse  possession  is  restricted  to  that  portion  of 
Ithe  territory  to  which  they  made  a  claim  of  right.  Whatever 
jmay  have  been  the  character  of  their  possession,  to  make  an 
ladverse  holding  it  must  be  included  within  the  limits  of  their 
claim. 


386  THE  LAW  OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

VII,  Adverse  Holding  must  be  Continuous  and  Uninterrupted. 

The  term  of  adverse  holding  necessary  to  give  title  beinj 
fixed  by  the  Treaty  at  fifty  years,  the  general  principle  requiring 
continuity  of  possession  must  be  applied  to  this  period.  No  prin- 
ciple is  better  established  than  that  such  possession,  in  order  t< 
give  title,  must  be  continuous.  A  possession  for  a  few  years 
interrupted  either  by  forcible  dispossession  or  by  voluntary  aban 
donment,  although  resumed  at  intervals,  is  not  such  a  possessioi 
as  the  law  requires  to  give  title  to  an  adverse  holder.  The  holdinf 
must  continue  during  the  whole  period,  without  a  break.  If  it  if 
broken,  the  holding  comes  to  an  end,  and  the  existence  of  nevi 
conditions  at  a  later  period,  which  amount  to  adverse  holding 
cannot  be  deemed  a  continuance  of  the  first  holding,  but  must  b< 
considered  by  themselves  as  beginning  a  new  period  of  fifty  }  ears, 
which,  in  order  to  be  effective,  must  also  be  continuous. 

In  Agency  Co.  v.  Short  (1888),  13  Appeal  Cases,  Y93,  798,  799, 
(Privy  Council),  previously  cited  as  to  another  principle,  the  plain- 
tiff sought  to  recover  land  in  Botany  Bay,  New  South  Wales, 
The  defendant  set  up  an  adverse  possession  for  the  stat 
utory  period,  but  failed  to  prove  that  he  and  the  persons 
through  whom  he  claimed  had  been  in  continuous  possessioB 
during  that  period.  It  was  held  by  the  Supreme  Court 
of  New  South  Wales,  that  there  being  no  evidence  that  the 
legal  owner  during  the  statutory  period  retook  possession,  the 
statute  when  set  running  continued  to  run,  notwithstanding 
the  fact  that  there  was  a  break  in  the  chain  of  adverse  pos- 
sessors. Upon  appeal  to  the  Privy  Council,  it  was  held  that  the 
abandonment  of  possession  by  the  trespassers  left  the  rightfi 
owner  in  the  same  position  in  all  respects  as  he  was  before  the 
intrusion  took  place.  Lord  Macnaghten,  delivering  the  judgment 
of  the  Privy  Council,  and  referring  to  the  decision  of  the  Colonial 
Court,  said: 

**  Their  Lordships  are  unable  to  concur  in  this  view.     They  are  of 
opinion  that  if  a  person  enters  upon  the  land  of  another  and  holds  pos- 


THE  LAW  OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING.  387 

session  for  a  time,  and  then,  without  having  acquired  title  under  the 
statute,  abandons  possession,  the  rightful  owner,  on  the  abandonment,  is  in 
the  same  position  in  all  respects  as  he  was  before  the  intrusion  took  place. 
.  .  .  The  possession  of  the  intruder,  ineffectual  for  the  purpose  of 
transferring  title,  ceases  upon  its  abandonment  to  be  effectual  for  any 
purpose.  It  does  not  leave  behind  it  any  cloud  on  the  title  of  the  rightful 
owner  or  any  secret  process  at  work  for  the  possible  benefit  in  time  to  come 
of  some  casual  interloper  or  lucky  vagrant. 

"  There  is  not,  in  their  Lordships'  opinion,  any  analogy  between  the 
case  supposed  and  the  case  of  successive  disabilities  mentioned  in  the 
statute.  There  the  statute  'continues  to  run  '  because  there  is  a  person  in 
possession  in  whose  favor  it  is  running. 

The  effect  is  the  same  whether  the  possession  is  terminated  by 
a  voluntary  abandonment,  or  by  a  forcible  dispossession.     If  the 
'  possession  depends  upon  settlement  and  the  settlement  is  aban- 
doned, the  adverse  holding,  in  so  far  as  it  is  based  on  that  settle- 
ment, comes  to  an  end.     A  new  settlement  will  not  continue  it. 
'       It  may  or  may  not  bo  the  beginning  of  a  new  adverse  holding, 
according  to  whether  or  not  it  fulfills  the  conditions  of  adverse 
I  holding;  but  the  adverse  holding  based  on  the  previous  settlement 
I  is  determined  forever.    The  occasional  existence,  therefore,  during 
i  a  long  period — two  hundred  years,  for  example— of   settlements 
I  lasting  a  short  time,  when  there  are  long  intervals  of  abandon- 
ment during  the  period,  count  for  nothing  unless  some  one  of  the 
I  settlements  shows  a  continuous  existence  during  the  whole  period 
jof  fifty  years. 

A  fortiori,  the  adverse  holding  is  terminated  by  a  forcible  dis- 
I possession  by  the  former  owner.  There  is  no  more  effectual  mode 
!of  putting  an  end  to  adverse  possession  on  the  part  of  a  State  than 
Iby  forcibly  ousting  the  intruder.  It  is  not  only  a  cessation  of  the 
Ipossession,  but  it  is  notice  at  the  same  time,  and  that  of  the  clear- 
est kind,  that  the  claim,  if  any,  is  not  only  disputed,  but  is  to  be 
f  iresisted  by  all  means  at  the  disposal  of  the  sovereign. 

Applying  these  principles  to  the  present  case,  it  is  found  that 
r |bhe  settlements  or  other  establishments  relied  on  to  prove  adverse 
''bolding  were  from  time  to  time  totally  abandoned.    Such  was 


388  THE  LAW  OF  ADVEHSK  HOLDING. 

the  case  with  the  first  Pomeroon  colony  in  1665,  after  an  ex- 
istence of  seven  years;  the  second  Pomeroon  colony  in  1689,  after 
an  existence  of  three  years,  and  the  second  and  third  posts  in 
Cuyuni,  each  of  which  lasted  three  years.  The  destruction  of  the 
first  post  in  1T58  was  a  forcible  dispossession  by  the  holder  of  the 
prior  sovereignty.  Each  of  these  brought  to  an  end  the  running 
of  the  50-year  rule,  as  to  that  particular  establishment,  and  each 
required  a  new  act  of  settlement,  in  order  to  begin  adverse  hold- 
ing again. 

The  same  rule  holds  good  as  to  political  control.  Political 
control  is  by  the  Treaty  made,  with  certain  reservations,  a  pos- 
sible foundation  for  adverse  holding;  but  the  political  control 
must  be  continuous  for  fifty  years.  A  fitful  control,  exercised 
spasmodically  and  capriciously  from  time  to  time,  with  long  in- 
tervals of  apparent  abandonment  of  control,  cannot  be  deemed  to 
be  sufficient  under  the  Treaty. 

Whatever  the  Dutch  did  that  had  a  shadow  of  resemblance  to 
political  control  in  the  disputed  territory  they  did  in  this  spas- 
modic way.  There  was  no  such  thing  as  a  systematic  adminis- 
tration of  any  district.  There  was  no  such  thing  as  a  continuous 
control  of  any  district.  Of  political  control  in  the  real  meaning 
of  the  word  there  was  none  whatever.  Even  the  acts  upon  which 
the  British  Case  relies  to  prove  some  sort  of  control,  and  espec- 
ially those  relating  to  the  Indians,  had  about  them  no  element  of 
continuity. 

VIII.    Adverse  Holding  must  be  Open  and  Notorious. 

The  theory  upon  which  an  adverse  holding  is  allowed  to  make 
title  is  that  if  the  true  owner,  knowing  the  fact  of  the  entry 
upon  and  adverse  possession  of  his  land,  nevertheless  sleeps  upon 
his  title  and  allows  the  encroachment  to  go  unchecked  for  a  long 
period  of  time,  he  shall  be  held  to  have  forfeited  his  rights.  But 
in  order  that  such  a  principle  may  apply,  the  adverse  possession 
must  be  of  such  a  character  that  the  owner  is  chargeable  with 


THE  LAW  OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING.  389 

actual  or  constructive  knowledge  of  the  possession,  and  of  the 
claim  under  which  it  is  taken.  A  silent  and  secret  taking  of 
possession,  in  the  case  of  individuals,  cannot  create  an  adverse 
title.  Much  more  is  this  true  in  the  case  of  States;  above  all, 
in  territories  such  as  those  now  in  dispute,  which  were  in  con- 
siderable part  a  trackless  wilderness,  where  the  opportunity 
for  secret  and  obscure  acts  by  individuals  in  remote  and  un- 
frequented localities  was  exceptionally  great. 

So,  too,  with  the  claim  of  right.  It  is  not  only  the  facts 
which  are  alleged  to  constitute  possession  that  must  be  notorious, 
but  the  claim  must  also  be  notorious.  It  must  be  brought  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  prior  holder,  actually  or  constructively,  not 
only  that  the  adverse  holder  has  possession,  but  that  he  has 
possession  under  a  claim  of  right. 

No  principle  of  the  law  of  adverse  holding  is  more  clearly 
recognized  than  this,  and  notoriety  is  one  of  the  most  necessary 
elements  of  any  definition  or  the  term.  Thus,  the  definition  of 
Chief  Justice  Kent,  already  quoted,  is: 

"A  real  and  substantial  inclosure,  an  actual  occupancy,  21,  possessio  pedis, 
which  is  definite,  positive  and  notorious." 

Jackson  v.  Slioonmaker,  2  Johnson's  New  York  Eeports,  230, 
234  (1807). 

So  also  says  the  United  States  Supreme  Court,  by  Mr.  Justice 

Baldwin: 

"  It  suffices  for  this  purpose,  that  visible  and  notorious  acts  of  ownership 
iiie  exercised  over  the  premises  in  controversy,  for  twenty-one  years,  after  an 
entry  under  claim  and  color  of  title." 

Ewing  v.  Burnet  (1837),  11  Peters'  [U.  S.  Sup.  Ct.]  Reports, 
41,  52. 

Says  Mr.  Justice  Story: 

,j  "  An  ouster,  or  disseisin,  is  not,  indeed,  to  be  presumed  from  the  mere 
tj  fact  of  sole  possession;  but  it  may  be  proved  , by  such  possession,  accom- 
jj  panied  with  a  notorious  claim  of  an  exclusive  right." 

j  Ricard  v.  Williams  (1822),  7  Wheaton's  [U.  S.  Sup.  Ct.]  Re- 

i  ports.  69,  121. 


390  THE  LAW  OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

See  also  Chief  Justice  Parker: 

"There  should  be  something  more  than  the  deed  itself,  and  a  mere 
entry  under  it— something  from  which  a  presumption  of  actual  notice  may 
reasonably  arise.  It  is  not  necessary  to  show  actual  knowledge  of  the  deed. 
Acts  of  ownership,  raising  a  reasonable  presumption  that  the  owner,  with 
knowledge  of  them,  must  have  understood  that  there  was  a  claim  of  title, 
may  be  held  to  be  constructive  notice." 

Bailey  v.  Carleton  (1841),  12  New  Hampshire  Reports,  9,  16. 

Applying  this  principle  to  the  present  case,  it  is  admitted  that 
many  of  the  acts  which  are  adduced  iu  the  British  Case  to  indicate 
possession  on  the  part  of  the  Dutch  were  of  sufficient  notoriety. 
The  fact  that  Dutch  colonists  and  traders  passed  over  the  territory, 
for  example,  and  that  they  passed  over  it  for  purposes  of  trade,  was 
doubtless  well  known,  for  the  reason,  if  for  no  other,  that  a  large 
part  of  this  trade  was  carried  on  by  or  with  the  Spaniards  them- 
selves, who,  in  like  manner  and  to  an  equal  extent,  frequented  the 
territory  for  the  same  purpose;  in  fact,  much  of  the  trade  which 
is  spoken  of  was  a  direct  trade  between  the  Spaniards  and  the 
Dutch  themselves,  and  the  fact  has  been  noted  that,  especially 
during  the  seventeenth  century,  comprising  the  largest  part  of 
the  period,  the  trade  between  the  two  colonies,  particularly  in 
Barima,  was  almost  wholly  carried  on  by  the  Spaniards,  who 
came  to  the  Dutch  post  and  settlement,  and  but  little  by  the 
Dutch  going  to  the  Orinoco.  It  was  the  distinct  and  avowed 
policy  of  the  authorities  of  Essequibo  to  have  the  trade  proceed  in 
this  way.  The  question  of  trade,  however,  is  wholly  unimpor- 
tant, because  there  is  no  possible  way  in  which  it  can  be  made  the 
foundation  of  adverse  holding,  for  it  fulfills  none  of  the  require- 
ments of  adverse  holding. 

As  for  the  other  acts  upon  which  the  claim  is  made,  there  is 
no  evidence  that  any  of  these  had  the  notoriety  which  the  law  re- 
quires to  establish  adverse  holding.  So  as  to  the  two  or  time 
instances  referred  to  of  alleged  cutting  of  timber,  although  jio 
timber  was  cut.  So  with  the  prospecting  of  Hildebrandt  in  the 
Blue  Mountains,  of  which  some  mention  is  made.     Nothing  of 


THE  LAW  OP  ADVERSE  HOLDING.  391 

importance  was  ever  discovered  there,  and  it  was,  for  that  reason, 
abandoned  by  the  Company.  The  Spaniards  never  knew  that  it 
had  been  carried  on. 

As  to  the  maintenance  of  "'  posts,"  so-called,  there  was  no 
post  west  of  the  hne  connecting  the  falls  of  the  Cuyuni,  in  the 
Interior,  with  Mornka,  on  the  Coast,  which  the  Spaniards  did  not 
break  up  as  soon  as  its  existence  became  known.  We  know  with 
what  rapidity  and  thoroughness  they  acted  upon  the  report  of 
Fray  Benito  as  to  the  post  at  Quive-Kuru;  and  as  to  the  second, 
the  Spaniards  were  preparing  to  attack  it  when  the  post  was 
moved,  and  as  to  the  third,  there  is  no  evidence  that  the 
Spaniards  were  even  aware  of  its  existence.  If  they  were,  its 
pretensions  were  so  slight  and  its  activities  so  feeble  and  harmless 
that  it  might  well  have  been  left,  as  it  was,  to  the  natural  death 
which  was  its  fate  after  three  years  of  precarious  existence. 

Finally,  in  reference  to  the  relations  with  the  Indians.     Apart 
from  all  the  other  considerations  excluding  these  relations  from 
the  question  of  adverse  holding,  they  entirely  lack  the  element  of 
,  notoriety.     They  were  carried  on  by  secret  intrigues  and  conspira- 
cies.    The  most  pronounced  effect  of  them  in  this  controversy, 
namely,  the  attacks  upon  Spanish  missions,  which  the  Dutch  in- 
stigated, were  of  so  secret  and  sinister  a  character  that  the  Com- 
pany, even  in  its  correspondence  with  the  Director,  referred  to 
them  with  guarded  indirectness  of  speech,  but  in  phrases  beneath 
which  lay  an  unmistakable  meaning.     The  Director  hinted  that 
he  could  bring  about  an  attack.     The  Company  adopted  the  hint, 
I  and  hinted  back  that  he  should  do  it,  but  cautioned  him  that  it 
I  must  be  done  covertly  and  secretly.     "  If  you  can,"  says  their  ex- 
.|  traordinary  letter  of  September  9,  1749  (B.  C.  II,  51),  "by  indi- 
rect means  and  without  yourself  appearing  therein,  bring  it  about 
that  the  Spaniards  be  dislodged    from  the   forts  and  buildings 
•     .     .     you  will  do  well  to  accomplish  this."     And  the  burning 
of  the  missions  and  the  murder  of  the  missionaries  followed  in  due 
course.    Certainly  these  acts,  however  else  they  may  be  charac- 


392  THE  LAW  OF  ADVEKSE  HOLDING. 

terized,  purposely  and  actively  shunned  that  notoriety  which  is 
required  to  establish  adverse  holding. 

The  process,  of  acquiring  prescriptive  rights  by  stealth  is 
precisely  what  the  law  forbids,  and  it  is  to  prevent  this  that 
it  exacts  that  adverse  holding  shall  be  under  a  notorious 
claim.  It  is  the  laches  of  the  owner  that  justifies  the  rule  by 
which  a  wrongful  possession  may  grow  into  a  title;  but  the  owner 
is  not  chargeable  with  laches  unless  he  has  notice  that  the  pos- 
session is  held  under  a  claim,  and  he  has  no  such  notice  where  the 
acts  by  which  the  possession  is  sought  to  be  established  are  not 
inconsistent  with  the  ownership  of  another,  or  where  the  adverse 
claimant  studiously  refrains  from  advancing  his  claim  and  is 
silent  where  he  ought  to  speak. 

Before  dismissing  this  subject  it  may  be  well  to  contrast  the 
Spanish  claim  and  their  method  of  enforcing  it  with  that  which 
the  Dutch  Company  imposed  upon  the  Director-General.  Accord- 
ing to  the  latter's  own  testimony  in  his  Memorandum  of  1764 
(V.  C.  II;  157),  he  says: 

**  What  can  we  expect  from  .  .  .  tlie  removal  of  the  Spanish 
colonies  in  Guayana  so  much  nearer  to  our  boundaries  ?  The  latter  go 
to  work  openly,  like  a  proud  nation,  and  they  can  therefore  be  better  op- 
posed, an  open  enemy  never  being  so  dangerous  as  a  secret  one." 


VENEZUELA-BRITISH  GUIANA  BOUNDARY  ARBITRATION 


THE  PRINTED  ARGUMENT 


ON  BEHALF  OF  THE 


UNITED    STATES    OF   VENEZUELA 


BEFORE  THE 


TRIBUNAL   OF   ARBITRATION 


J.  M.  DE  ROJAS,  BENJAMIN  HARRISON, 

/fgent  of  l^ene^uela.  BENJAMIN  F.  TRACY, 

S.  MALLET-PREVOST, 
JAMES  RUSSELL  SOLEY, 

Counsel  for  Veneiuela. 


In  Two  Volumes. — Volume  2. 


NEW  YORK 
The  Evening  Post  Job  Printing  House,  156  Fulton  Street 

1898 


VENEZUELA-BRITISH  GUIANA  BOUNDARY  ARBITRATION 


THE  PRINTED  ARGUMENT 


ON  BEHALF  OF  THE 


UNITED    STATES    OF  VENEZUELA 


BEFORE  THE 


TRIBUNAL   OF  ARBITRATION 


J.  M.  DE  ROJAS,  BENJAMIN  HARRISON, 

Agent  of  yene^uela.  BENJAMIN  F.  TRACY, 

S.  MALLET-PREVOST, 
JAMES  RUSSELL  SOLEY, 

Counsel  for  Venezuela. 


In  Two  Volumes. — Volume  2. 


NEW  YORK 
The  Evening  Post  Job  Printing  House,  156  Fulton  Street 

189.S 


./57 


>>5/ 


CONTENTS. 


VolTime   1. 

PAOB 

Chapter        I.  General  ontline  of  the  Controversy 1 

II.  The  Treaty  of  Arbitration 9 

"           IH.  Diplomatic  Correspondence 67 

IV.  The  Schomburgk  Line 125 

"  V.  The  Geographical  features  of  the  territory  in  dispute  as 

bearing  on  the  question  of  title 153 

VI.  Spanish  Title— Discovery 177 

"  VII.  The  Constitution  of  the  Dutch  "West  India  Company  as 

bearing  on  the  question  of  title 239 

Vni.  The  Dutch  Title— Conquest 259 

IX.  —Treaty  of  Munster  a  Cession 281 

"             X.  Adverse  Holding — Dutch  Boundary 309 

XL  -Law  of 353 


Volume    3. 

PAOE 

Chapter    XH.  —Settlement 393 

Xni.  —Political  Control 469 

XIV.   —Trade  Relations   561 

XV.  —Indians 589 

XVI.  — MisceDaneous  Acts 639 

XVn.  Events  in  Guiana  from  1814  to  1850 663 

"     XVni.  National  Security 719 

XIX.  Watershed 737 

"          XX    Middle  Distance  and  Natural  Boundaries 757 

Conclusion    765 

1.  The  Ball  of  Pope  Alexander,  1493;  by  Bafael  Seijas iii 

2.  Commeats  and  Criticisms  on  the  British  Case;  by  Bafael 

Seijas xi 

3.  Comments  and  Criticisms  on  the  Counter-Cases  of  Vene- 

zuela and  Great  Britain;  by  Bafael  Seijas xxxi 

4.  Notes  on  Marmion's   Beport  of  July  10,  1788,  and  on 

maps  submitted  by  Great  Britain;  by  Bafael  Seijas  . .  1 

5.  The  Lines  of  Schomburgk  and  of  Codazzi;  by  J.  M.  de 

Bojas Ixxiii 

6.  British  Diplomacy  in  Caracas  from  1830  to  1850;  by  J. 
M.  de  Bojas Ixxvi 


■ 


CHAPTER  Xn, 

)UTCH  SETTLEMENT   IN   ITS  BEARING  ON  THE    QUES- 
TION OF  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

Having  stated  the  general  principles  lying  at  the  foundation 

the  doctrine  of  adverse  holding,  it  remains  to  consider  liow  far, 
inder  the  Treaty,  and  under  the  general  principles  of  law  apart 
From  the  Treaty,  an  adverse  holding  for  fifty  years  by  the  Nether- 
lands of  any  of  the  territory  in  dispute  has  been  established. 
There  is  but  one  condiiton,  specifically  mentioned  in  the  Treaty, 
which  is  generally  sufficient  to  constitute  an  adverse  holding, 
namely  "  actual  settlement  of  a  district." 

A  word  may  be  said  here  as  to  the  time-limit  mentioned  in 
Rule  (a). 

The  period  covered  by  the  history  of  the  Dutch  colony  is  from 
1648  to  1814,  a  period  of  one  hundred  and  sixty-six  years. 
Under  these  circumstances,  and  considering  the  importance 
which  the  parties  attached  to  the  time-limit,  as  shown  by  its  in- 
sertion in  Rule  (a)  of  the  Treaty,  it  would  seem  that  the  British 
Case  should  be  found  somewhere  to  state  at  what  date  the  claim 
is  made  that  the  fifty-years'  period  begins  to  run.  But  one  looks  in 
vain  through  the  whole  Case  and  Counter-Case  for  any  suggestion 
that  at  any  particular  date  any  fifty-years'  period  begins  to  run 
for  any  particular  locality. 

1.  Actual  settlement  of  a  district. 

The  question  what  is  sufficient  to  constitute  an  adverse  holding 
in  respect  to  actual  settlement  has  been  already  discussed  in  the 
chapter  devoted  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Treaty  (pp.  ). 

As  there  shown  the  acts  relied  upon  to  establish  adverse  holding 
must  in  all  cases  be  national  acts,  made  under  the  authority  of  the 
dverse  holder  who  claims  as  sovereign,  and  must  be  evidenced  by 


I 


394  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

a  continued  exercise  of  sovereignty,  in  other  words,  by  political 
control.  A  settlement,  in  order  to  fulfill  the  conditions  of  adverse 
holding  as  to  any  particular  locality,  must  be  composed  of  inhab- 
itants in  greater  or  less  numbers,  who  have  adopted  that  locality 
as  a  fixed  place  of  abode,  and  who  have  established  there  their 
homes  and  occupations  with  a  certain  degree  of  permanence;  it 
must  be  under  a  recognized  and  actual  political  control  exercised 
over  the  territory  as  territory,  and  over  all  persons  therein;  and 
finally,  no  such  claim  can  be  established  beyond  the  area  of  actual 
settlement,  nor  in  a  geographical  district,  by  anything  less  than  a 
settlement  of  the  district. 

Starting  with  the  Dutch  possession  of  Kykoveral  at  the  date  of 
the  Treaty  of  Munster,  we  find  that  between  1648  and  1814  the 
Dutch  succeeded  in  making  settlements  to  a  certain  extent  and 
for  a  greater  or  less  period 

(1)  On  the  Essequibo  River,  and  at  the  mouth  of  the  Cuyuni 
and  Massaruni,  below  the  falls  of  those  rivers. 

(2)  At  Pomeroon  and  its  immediate  neighborhood. 

The  question  of  settlement  is  also  to  be  considered,  although 
only  for  the  purpose  of  showing  its  non-existence,  in 

(1)  The  Interior  Territory,  west  of  the  Lower  Cuyuni  Falls  and 
south  of  the  Imataka  Mountains,  including  the  Cuyuni-Massaruni 
region. 

(2)  The  Coast  Territory,  west  of  Moruka,  including  the  Barima- 
Waini  region. 

The  evidence  as  to  these  four  localities  will  be  considered  in  the 
above  order. 

(1)    Essequibo. 

The  history  of  the  Dutch  colony  of  Essequibo  is  divided  into  two 
periods.  During  the  first  hundred  years  or  thereabouts,  the  settle- 
ments or  plantations  were  chiefly  upon  the  points  of  land  formed 
by  the  junction  of  the  three  streams,— Bartica  Point,  between 
the  Massaruni  and  the  Essequibo;  Cartabo  Point,  between  the  Mas- 
saruni and  the  Cuyuni;  the  point  where  the  penal  settlement  was 


DUTCH  SETTLEMENT.  395 

afterwards  situated,  between  the  Cuyuni  and  the  Essequibo,  and 
the  opposite  bank  of  the  Essequibo,  with  a  few  plantations  lower 
down.  This  circle  of  plantations  surrounding  Kykoveral  is  the 
early  Dutch  colony  of  Essequibo. 

No  attempt  was  made  to  settle  on  the  Cuyuni,  Massaruni  or 
Essequibo  above  the  falls.  The  latter  formed  an  absolute  bar- 
rier, as  far  as  colonial  development  was  concerned,  both  on  the 
Cuyuni  and  the  Massaruni,  as  has  already  been  shown  in  discuss- 
ing the  geographical  features  (Ch.  VII,  pp.  ). 

The  first  period  in  the  history  of  settlement  in  Essequibo  is 
from 

(1)  mS  to  IJlfi. 

The  statement  is  made  in  the  British  Case  (p.  25),  speaking  of 
the  period  prior  to  1648,  that  *'  the  seat  of  government  was  at 
Kykoveral."  This  statement  is  not  correct  as  indicating  the  con- 
dition of  affairs  at  the  date  of  the  Treaty  of  Munster  or  prior 
thereto.  Fort  Kykoveral,  on  the  island  of  that  name,  was  not  the 
seat  of  government  in  the  sense  that  there  was  any  settlement 
around  it  which  it  governed.  Kykoveral  was  the  settlement. 
There  was  nothing  else. 

At  this  date  the  establishment  at  Kykoveral  was  purely  a 
trading  establishment.  The  persons  who  occupied  it  were  the 
unmarried  employees  of  the  West  India  Company.  There  were 
no  free  colonists;  there  were  no  plantations. 

For  the  first  nine  years  after  the  Treaty  of  Munster,  these  con- 
ditions remained  unchanged.  There  is  no  record  of  any  colonists 
or  of  any  settlement.  The  direction  of  the  post  at  Essequibo  was 
in  the  hands  of  the  Zeeland  Chamber  of  the  West  India  Com- 
pany, and  their  first  invitation  to  colonists  was  issued  in  1656  (V. 
C.  II,  28).  A  new  invitation,  granting  additional  privileges,  was 
published  the  next  year  (V.  C.  II,  30).  As  a  result  of  these 
efforts,  on  March  22,  1657,  the  first  actual  colonists  arrived  in  the 
Essequibo,  numbering  twelve  persons. 


I 


396  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

The  small  results  of  this  first  undertaking  led  the  Zeeland 
Chamber  to  make  an  arrangement  with  three  Dutch  cities  which 
resulted  in  the  settlement  of  the  Pomeroon  in  1658.  This  settle- 
ment will  be  taken  up  by  itself. 

In  consequence  of  the  energy  with  which  the  undertaking  of 
the  three  Zeeland  cities  was  started,  the  colony  in  the  Pomeroon 
attained  a  rapid,  perhaps  too  rapid  development.  For  the  mo- 
ment all  interest  was  centered  in  this  colony;  and  although  the 
Essequibo  settlement  was  maintained  and  its  Commandeur  re- 
mained at  Kykoveral,  it  showed  comparatively  little  progress. 

Not  until  1664  do  we  find  any  indications  of  new  development 
in  this  quarter.  In  that  year  the  first  allusion  appears  in  the 
evidence  subsequent  to  the  emigration  of  the  twelve  colonists  in 
1657.  This  is  the  petition  of  Jan  Doensen  to  the  Zeeland  Cham- 
ber, July  3,  1664  (B.  C.  I,  162),  asking  for  a  grant  of  land  which 
he  with  several  qualified  associates  had  chosen  and  taken  posses- 
sion of  "  situated  in  the  River  Essequibo  at  Brauwershoek,  upon 
which  he  has  placed  an  agent,  one  Huibrecht  Vinou,  a  French- 
man, provided  with  several  negroes  and  other  agricultural  imple- 
ments for  the  establishment  of  a  regular  sugar-mill  there  and  of 
the  further  plantation  needed  therefor." 

Brauwershoek  was  on  the  point  already  referred  to  between 
the  Cuyuni  and  Essequibo,  and  therefore  within  the  little  circle 
already  described  surrounding  the  island  of  Kykoveral  and  in  its 
immediate  neighborhood.  It  was  about  at  the  present  site  of  the 
British  penal  settlement. 

The  fact  that  there  was  no  settlement  of  colonists  in  Essequibo 
at  this  time  is  further  established  by  Doensen's  petition,  which  also 
shows  that  there  was  no  registry  of  lands  in  the  colony.  He  asks 
that,  "inasmuch  as  there  in  that  country  they  have  or  can  find 
no  opportunity  for  having  the  ownership  of  their  aforesaid  plan- 
tation recorded  and  registered,"  the  ownership  may  be  recorded 
at  home. 

In  1665,  during  the  war  between  the  English  and  the  Dutch, 


DUTCH  SETTLEMENT.  397 

an  English  force  from  Barbadoes,  led  by  Major  Scott,  attacked  and 
captured  Pomeroon  and  Essequibo,  at  both  of  which  places  he 
left  garrisons  in  occupation. 

The  French,  as  the  alhes  of  the  Dutch,  harassed  and  blockaded 
the  English  garrisons,  which  in  the  following  year  surrendered, 
and  the  Dutch  thereupon  resumed  possession  and  the  West 
India  Company  its  control. 

The  settlement  on  the  Pomeroon  having  come  to  an  end,  Esse- 
quibo resumed  its  importance,  and  in  1669  the  first  cargo  of  sugar 
was  sent  from  the  colony,  a  result  no  doubt  due  partly  to  the 
fact  that  all  the  Pomeroon  slaves  were  turned  over  to  Essequibo. 

In  the  next  year,  16Y0,  Hendrik  Rol  was  appointed  Com- 
mandeur;  and  in  pursuance  of  the  policy  which  he  advocated, 
three  plantations  were  started  for  the  Company  in  that  year  in 
Essequibo.  The  colony  was  still  in  a  primitive  stage  of  develop- 
ment. 

In  1674  the  States-General  chartered  the  new  West  India  Com- 
pany, limiting  its  possessions  to  Essequibo  and  Pomeroon. 

It  early  became  evident  that  the  fort  at  Kykoveral  was  too  far 
up  the  rivers  to  serve  as  a  protection  from  attack  by  sea,  and  in 
1684  we  find  the  first  tendency  towards  a  movement  in  the  direc- 
tion of  the  river  mouth.  In  that  year  the  French  were  in  the 
Orinoco,  and  in  consequence  of  the  alarm  created  by  this  invasion 
a  "stronghold"  of  palisades  was  built  on  Stamper's  Island,  some 
distance  down  the  Essequibo  River  (B.  C.  I,  167). 

During  the  next  twenty-five  years  the  plantation  increased  in 
number  and  extent,  yet  as  late  as  1691  the  whole  colony  contained 
not  more  than  one  hundred  Europeans  (Rod way  and  Watt, 
Chronological  History,  pp.  12,  86,  88). 

The  most  complete  picture  of  the  daily  life  of  the  colony  and 
the  occupations  of  those  who  had  it  in  charge  in  the  early  part  of 
the  eighteenth  century  is  to  be  found  in  the  Journal  of  the  Com- 
raandeurfrom  July,  1699,  to  June,  1701,  printed  in  full  inB.  C.-C, 
47-168.     To  illustrate  this  Journal,  map  of  the  plantations 


I 


398  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

was  made  by  the  Surveyor,  Abraham  Maas,  in  1706,  and  sent  to 
the  West  India  Company  by  the  Commandeur. 

This  map  (Venezuelan  Atlas,  Map  59),  taken  in  connection 
with  the  Journal  just  referred  to,  shows  exactly  the  extent  of  the 
Essequibo  settlements.  It  defines  the  boundaries  of  twenty-eight 
plantations,  nearly  every  one  of  which  is  referred  to  in  the  Jour- 
nal. Of  these  plantations,  nine  lay  on  the  Essequibo  below  the 
junction  of  the  rivers,  twelve  upon  the  Essequibo  above,  and  the 
remainder  on  the  Cuyuni  and  Massaruni  in  the  immediate  neigh- 
borhood of  Kykoveral.  The  plantations  lay  on  the  river  banks, 
and  the  land  comprised  in  each  grant  extended  a  mile  or  two  in- 
land. None  of  these  plantations  were  too  far  from  the  fort  to 
make  the  journey,  going  and  returning,  in  one  day. 

The  plantations  on  the  Cuyuni  and  Massaruni  were  much 
nearer  to  the  island  than  the  most  distant  plantations  on  the  Esse- 
quibo itself.  There  was  not  a  plantation  on  these  rivers  further 
than  ten  miles  from  the  fort.     All  of  them  were  below  the  falls. 

During  the  next  thirty  years  the  plantations  gradually  increased, 
but  almost  wholly  on  the  banks  of  the  Essequibo.  The  river  still 
remained  the  only  means  of  communication.  No  roads  were 
built,  and  there  were  no  interior  plantations.  There  was  no  vil- 
lage anywhere;  the  only  part  of  the  settlement  which  resembled 
a  village  was  a  collection  of  ten  or  twelve  houses  at  Cartabo  point 
between  the  Massaruni  and  the  Cuyuni,  opposite  Kykoveral.  At 
this  point,  in  1716,  a  new  Government  house  was  built,  directly 
opposite  the  island,  which  was  known  as  the  "House  Naby'* 
(near  by),  at  which  the  Court  of  Policy  held  its  sessions.  The 
few  houses  which  gathered  around  it  were  locally  known  as 
Cartabo. 

The  lowest  fall  of  the  Cuyuni  still  remained  the  extreme  limit 
of  the  plantations  on  that  river,  and  it  continued  to  be  the  limit 
as  long  as  the  Dutch  colony  existed.  At  this  point  the  Company 
had  two  experimental  plantations  for  raising  indigo  and  coffee. 
The  indigo  plantation  was  begun  in  1732  (B.  C.  II,  14).    It  was  al 


DUTCH  SETTLEMENT.  399 

the  lowest  fall  in  the  Cuyuni  {Id.,  201),  where  mention  is  made 
that  a  party  of  Spaniards  "in  Cuyuni  have  been  down  to  the 
lowest  fall,  where  your  Lordships'  indigo  plantation  is  situated." 
At  the  lowest  fall  of  the  Cuyuni  an  experimental  coffee  planta- 
tion was  also  established  by  the  Company.  From  the  report  of 
the  Commandeur  of  the  Colony  in  1730  (B.  C.  II,  10),  this  planta 
tion  was  partly  above  and  partly  below  the  fall.  The  Com- 
mandeur reports  that 

"  on  4he  29th  and  30th  of  September  \i.  e.,  1729]  I  inspected  the  coffee 
plantations  in  Cuyuni,  both  above  and  below  the  fall,  and  found  many  of 
the  oldest  trees  withered,  and  most  of  them  in  a  bad  state,  wherefore  I 
ordered  the  Director,  Saign6,  to  go  and  inspect  the  surrounding  lands,  and 
to  have  a  new  coffee  and  cocoa  plantation  laid  out  towards  the  next  season, 
in  order  to  see  whether  it  would  not  be  possible  to  grow  the  last-mentioned 
product  in  Cuyuni  (where  the  ground  is  best  fitted  for  it)." 

About  1738  a  number  of  slaves  revolted,  and  established  them- 
selves on  an  island  in  the  Cuyuni,  between  the  lower  falls  and  the 
mouth.  It  was  finally  arranged  that  they  should  continue  to 
occupy  the  island  under  the  Government,  on  performing  certain 
work.  This  continued  for  a  considerable  time,  the  people  being 
referred  to  as  the  "  Company's  half-free  Creoles"  (B.  C.  ). 

In  the  Massaruni  there  was  also  a  plantation  in  the  immediate 

neighborhood  of  the  falls.     This  was  the  Company's  plantation 

I  as  Poelwyck,    which    had    been    on    an  island    near    the    fort, 

but  which,  in  1704,  the  Commandeur  began  to  transfer  to  a  point 

■^  above  the  falls  (B.  C.  I,  228).     The  British  case  states: 

"  The  site  can  be  identified  by  means  of  the  map  of  1748  by  Storm  van  's 
Gravesande,  on  which  it  is  numbered  46." 

A  reference  to  the  map  in  question  shows  that  plantation  No. 
46,  which  is  given  in  the  table  of  references  on  the  same  map  as 
Poelwyck,  was  not  more  than  ten  miles  above  Kykoveral,  and 
i  therefore  just  about  the  lowest  fall. 

In  1735  an  outlying  post  was  established  at  some  distance 
up  the  Essequibo  River,  at  or  near  Arinda.  This  outlying 
^post    was    maintained   with    more  or    less  continuity  through- 


400  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

out  the  Dutch  history  of  the  colony.  It  was  mainly  for  trading 
with  the  Indians.  Except  the  Outlier  and  Bylier  employed  at  the 
Post,  not  a  single  white  man  ever  lived  above  the  falls  of  Esse- 
quibo. 

(2)  17Ji.0-1811^. 

In  1^39-40  the  garrison  and  the  seat  of  government  was  trans- 
ferred from  Kykoveral  to  Vlaggen  (or  Flag)  Island,  afterwaids 
known  as  Fort  Island,  fifteen  miles  from  the  mouth  of  the  Esse- 
quibo.  Here  there  grew  up  a  cluster  of  buildings,  including  the 
fort,  the  public  store  houses,  the  barracks  for  the  little  garrison 
and  the  dwellings  of  the  officers. 

The  real  growth  of  the  colony  dates  from  this  period,  or  perhaps 
a  little  earlier.  Until  1Y36,  it  had  remained  nearly  stationary. 
About  that  date  its  population  began  to  increase.  The  trade  in 
Indian  slaves  first  reached  considerable  proportions  about  the  same 
time. 

At  the  time  of  the  transfer,  a  strong  tendency  had  developed 
on  the  part  of  the  settlers  to  establish  their  plantations  nearer  the 
mouth  of  the  Essequibo.  After  the  removal  of  the  fort  the 
tendency  was  still  more  noticeable.  The  upper  plantations  were 
abandoned.     In  1748  they  were  considered  very  remote. 

In  that  year,  an  attempt  was  made  to  sell  "  the  burdensome 
and  unprofitable  indigo  plantation."  The  Court  said,  February  6, 
1Y48  (B.  C.  II,  55)  that  "to  our  sorrow,  we  must  report  that  in 
this  matter  we  could  in  no  way  attain  the  desired  end,  inasmuch 
as,  although  the  conditions  were  arranged  very  favorably,  not  one 
person  was  willing  to  bid  a  single  stiver  thereon,  presumably  on 
account  of  the  great  distance  and  the  insalubrity  of  the  River 
Cuyuni." 

The  old  fort  at  Kykoveral  was  practically  abandoned,  though 
it  was  occasionally  used  for  local  purposes,  especially  in  case  of 
Indian  disturbances  on  the  upper  part  of  the  Essequibo. 

In  1764  the  condition  of  affairs  was  such  that  the  Director- 


DUTCH   SETTLEMENT.  401 

General  could  write,  speaking  of  a  movement  of  Indians  from  the 
Cuyuni  to  the  Massaruni,  that  he  had  received  such  a  report 
"  from  the  few  colonists  who  still  reside  in  the  upper  reaches  of 
the  rivers  "  (B.  C.  Ill,  116).  In  1770  Hartsinck,  in  his  History  of 
Guiana  (I,  page  263),  states  that  the  village  of  Cartaho  had  con- 
sisted "of  twelve  or  fifteen  houses,"  but  that  it  was  "now  in 
ruins."  By  1773  all  demands  for  grants  of  land  upon  the  river 
at  the  former  site  had  ceased. 

On  December  23,  1773,  Trotz,  the  Director-General,  wrote  the 
Company  (V.  C.  II,  221): 

"  It  is  now  an  opportune  moment  for  closing  the  Court,  because  there 
are  no  longer  any  grants  of  land  to  be  mide;  no  one  will  ask  for  lands  in 
the  upper  reaches  of  the  river,  and  nusfc  of  them  are  already  annexed  as 
timber  grounds  for  the  plantations  below."' 

The  allusiou  here  is  to  the  old  grants  in  the  three  rivers  below 
the  falls. 

In  a  letter  to  the  Company  .June  6,  1777  (V.  C.  II,  232),  A.  A. 
Brown,  the  Secretary  in  Essequibo,  inquiring  whether  lands  which 
have  been  granted  "formerly  or  long  ago,  or  which  have  been 
acquired  by  purchase  or  inheritance,"  and  which  are  at  present  not 
at  all  under  cultivation  cannot  revert  to  the  Company,  writes: 

"  If  so,  then  the  Company  has  a  right  to  at  least  three  quarters  of  this 
extensive  colony  since  there  are  several  planters  who  hold  thousands  of  acres 
of  land  which  are  not  under  cultivation.  For  most  of  the  old  planters,  as 
soon  as  the  lower  lands  were  brought  tuider  cultivation,  transferretl  their 
plantations  which  lay  above  this  fort  or  Flag  Island,  brought  off  all  their 
slaves,  mills,  cattle,  etc.,  and  practically  abandoned  the  old  plantations;  but, 
in  order  nevertheless  to  retain  tiieir  right,  as  they  fancy,  to  those  upper 
lands,  they  sent  thither  all  tlieir  old  and  decrepit  slaves,  who  can  be  of  no 
use  on  the  new  plantations. 

Thus  one  fiiuls  above  this  island  (which  is  distant  only  one  tide  from  the 
mouth)  not  one  sugar,  coffee  or  cotton  plantation  except  only  that  of  the 

!  ex-Councilor  S.  G.  van  der  Heyden,  situated  a  great  tide  above  this  island, 

iat  the  mouths  of  the  two  rivers  Mazaruni  and  Cuyuni. 

In  these  rivers,  likewise,  just  as  in  the  river  of  Essequibo,  properly  so- 
called,  there  can  be  found  not  one  plantation  which  furnishes  any  products 


402  ADVERSE   HOLDING. 

except  a  little  cassava  bread,  and  this  of  so  slight  importance  as  not  h 
deserve  mention. 

It  is  evident  from  the  above  statements  that  there  were  no  se 
tlements  or  plantations  in  the  rivers  above  the  falls. 

Three  times  in  its  later  history,  before  the  cession  of  the  colon, 
to  Great  Britain,  it  was  subject  to  military  occupation, — by  th 
British  and  subsequently  by  the  French,  from  1781  to  1784;  by  th 
British  from  1790  to  1802.  and  again  by  the  British  from  1803  to 
1814. 

It  appears  from  the  official  reports  of  the  Dutch  Governor 
themselves  that  by  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  orig- 
inal site  of  the  colony  in  the  neighborhood  of  Kykoveral  had 
practically  become  a  wilderness.  The  movement  of  the  colony 
was  toward  the  east  bank  of  the  Essequibo  and  around  the  coast 
to  the  eastward  toward  Demerara.  A  mere  inspection  of  the  maps 
(Ven.  Atlas,  Maps  66,  67,  68,  70)  shows  that  before  the  plantations 
on  the  west  had  reached  the  mouth  of  the  Essequibo  those  on  the ' 
east  had  approached  Demerara.  At  the  close  of  the  period,  how- 
ever, the  plantations  began  to  fill  up  the  coast  to  the  north  of  tht 
mouth  of  the  Essequibo  on  the  west,  known  as  the  Arabisi  or 
Arabian  coast. 

In  summing  up  the  description  of  the  character  and  extent  of 
the  Essequibo  settlement,  considered  as  separate  and  distinct  from 
that  of  the  Pomeroon,  it  appears  that  the  limits  of  the  Essequibo 
colony,  as  far  as  actual  settlement  is  concerned,  may  be  fixed  witli 
substantial  accuracy.     They  are  clearly  defined  on  the  side  of  th 
Cuyuni  and  Massaruni  by  the  position  of  the  falls.     The  meridian 
of  59  degrees  longitude  west  of  Gi^enwich  crosses  these  two  riven 
at  a  point  from  eight  to  twelve  miles  west  of  the  lowest  falls.     All 
the  territory  that  can  possibly  be  clafmed  by  Great  Britain  in  thi 
controversy  as  being  within   the  settlements  on  the  Cuyuni  an 
Massaruni  is,  therefore,  well  within  this  meridian.     It  may  alp 
be  remarked  of  this  line  that  the  whole  course  of  the  Essequibo 
during  the  five  hundred  miles  of  its  length  is  to  the  eastward  of  it 


DUTCH   SETTLEMENT.  403 

except  possibly  at  its  source  in  the  mountains  of  Brazil.  It  is  fur- 
ther to  be  noticed  that  to  the  eastward  of  this  line  are  the  head- 
waters of  all  the  "  little  rivers"  emptying  into  the  lower  Essequibo 
from  the  west.  A  line  starting  on  this  meridian,  and  following  it 
south  to  the  parallel  of  6  degrees  N.,  thence  along  that  parallel  to 
the  Essequibo,  and  up  the  Essequibo  to  the  boundary  of  Brazil, 
takes  in  all  the  settlements  ever  possessed  by  the  Dutch  on  the 
Essequibo  and  its  tributaries. 

(2.)    POMEROON. 

he  Pomeroon  is  a  river  comparatively  inconsiderable  in  size, 
ich  rises  at  a  point  twenty-five  or  thirty  miles  west  of  the 
Essequibo  and  flows  in  a  northerly  direction  on  a  nearly  parallel 
course.  Upon  reaching  a  point  five  miles  from  the  seashore,  it 
takes  a  bend  to  the  northwest,  and  during  the  remainder  of  its 
icourse  runs  parallel  with  the  coast  line,  forming  a  long  peninsula 
or  strip  between  the  river  and  the  ocean,  which  terminates  in 
Cape  Nassau,  still  twenty-five  or  thirty  miles  west  of  the  mouth 
of  the  Essequibo.  Near  its  mouth  it  receives  the  waters  of  the 
Wacupo  Creek,  a  short  stream  coming  in  fiom  the  west;  and  an- 
other small  stream,  the  Moiuka,  emptying  into  the  sea,  lies  a 
mile  or  two  further  west. 

The  ordinary  means  of  communication  between  the  Pomeroon 
and  the  Moruka  was  by  sea.     Interior  water  communication  be- 
tween the  Pomeroon  and  Essequibo  is  of  comparatively  recent 
Jate,  and  is  accomplished   by   means  of  a  canal  at  Tapakuma. 
'"Ouring  the  Dutch    peiiod   the   ordinary  communication  between 
!ic  Pomeroon  and  Essequibo  was  by  sea. 

There  was  no  communication  between  the  Pomeroon  district 
md  the  BBrima-Waini  region,  except  through  the  semi-artificial 
tabo  near  Moruca  Creek,  a  means  of  communication  which,  ac- 
oiding  to  the  best  English  ofificial  authorities,  was  always  ex- 
;eedingly  uncertain,  and  often  impassable  for  months  at  a  time. 
The  first  settlement  in  the  Pomeroon  was  in  1658,  and  lasted 


404  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

until  1665.     The  second  settlement  was  in  1686,  and  lasted  until' 
1689.     These  are  the  only  settlements  which  the  Dutch  made  on 
that  river,  or  in  the  neighboring  territory. 

The  first  of  the  Pomeroon  colonies  was  known  as  Nova  Zee- 
landia.  It  was  the  result  of  the  agreement  made  December  16/ 
1657,  between  the  three  Zeeland  cities  of  Middelburg,  Flushing 
and  Vere  and  the  West  India  Company  to  fit  out  a  colonizing  ex- 
pedition, consisting  of  two  ships,  one  to  carry  out  the  colonists, 
the  other  to  bring  slaves  from  the  coast  of  Africa.  The  shipg 
sailed  in  February,  1658,  and  arrived  at  their  destination  in  June. 

By  1661  the  colonists  had  occupied  sites  on  the  Demerara  and 
also  on  the  Pomeroon;  they  had  divers  plantations  and  a  consid- 
erable number  of  settlers;  the  chief  place  was  called  Nieuw  Mid- 
delburgh.     (B.  C.  I,  148.) 

Many  documents  are  attached  to  the  British  Case  to  show  the 
flourishing  character  of  the  Pomeroon  settlement,  which  was  thus 
begun  in  1658.  It  is  not  necessary  to  dwell  upon  this  point.  It 
is  conceded  that  the  Dutch  settled  on  the  Pomeroon  in  1658, 
and  that  they  had  several  plantations  and  raised  what  was, 
for  a  new  colony,  a  considerable  ciop.  It  may  well  have  been  at 
the  time  the  most  flourishing  of  the  Dutch  colonies  in  Guayana. 
Its  prosperity,  however,  and  in  fact  its  very  existence,  came 
speedily  and  suddenly  to  an  end. 

In  1665,  an  English  force  under  Major  Scott  attacked  and  caj)- 
tured  the  settlement.  (B.  C.  I,  166).  At  that  time,  according 
to  Governor  Byam  (Journal,  B.  C.  I,  167,  which  enumerates  all 
the  colonies  in  Guayana),  the  westernmost  of  the  Dutch  colonies 
was  "  Bowroom  [PomeroonJ  and  Moroco,  alias  New  Zealand."  It 
is  stated  to  be  the  greatest  of  all  the  colonies  the  Dutch  ever  had 
in  America,  "16  leagues  leeward  of  Dissikeeb."  The  colonies  in 
1666  were  recovered  by  the  Dutch. 

The  resumption  of  possession  by  the  Dutch  had  no  results  in 
the  Pomeroon.  The  settlement  at  that  point  was  entirely  abaa-, 
doned.     There  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  after  the  English  occu^ 


DUTCH  SETTLEMENT.  405 

pation  any  attempt  was  made  to  restore  the  colony,  or  that  a 
colonist  remained  in  the  neighborhood;  on  the  contrary,  all  the 
evidence  goes  to  show  that  Pomeroon  returned  to  its  original 
condition  of  primeval  wilderness,  and  that  it  so  remained  from 
1665  mitil  1686. 

'^'In  1666  the  colony  was  recaptured  by  the  Dutch,  but  the  settlement 
on  the  Pomeroon  remained  neglected  for  some  time. '^^ 

It  was  not  only  neglected,  as  admitted  in  the  British  Case,  but 
it  was  entirely  abandoned. 

The  next  reference  to  the  locality  is  thirteen  years  later,  when 
the  Commandeur  at  Essequibo,  October  20,  1679  (B.  C.  I,  181), 
writes: 

"  The  River  Pomeroon  also  promises  some  profit;  for,  in  order  to  make 
trial  of  it,  I  sent  thither  in  August  last,  one  of  my  soldiers  to  barter  for 
annatto  dye." 

Tidings  came,  however,  of  the  approach  of  a  fleet  of  Caribs 
from  the  Corentin,  which  intended  to  visit  the  Essequibo  and  the 
Pomeroon,  with  a  view  to  making  an  attack.  No  attack  took 
place,  but  in  consequence  of  the  ramor  the  Commandeur  "  called 
into  the  fort  the  above-mentioned  outlier  in  Pomeroon,  both  to 
save  him  from  being  surprised,  along  with  the  Company's  goods, 
by  these  savages,  and  to  strengthen  ourselves  in  case  of  attack." 
On  the  8th  of  October,  the  soldier  accordingly  came  to  the  fort 
with  the  goods.  The  Commandeur  says  that,  as  the  scare  is  now 
over,  he  will  send  him  back  in  four  or  five  weeks,  "and,  if  the 
trade  prospers,  it  would  not  be  a  bad  idea  to  build  there  a 
small  house  for  two  or  three  men,  so  that  they  may  dwell  per- 
manently among  the  Indians  and  occupy  that  river." 

This  intention  was  carried  out  about  1683,  when  Daniel  Galle 
was  sent  to  the  Pomeroon  as  Postholder,  his  place  being  taken  in 
1684  by  Abraham  Baudaart  (B.  C.  I,  186). 

At  this  time  the  Essequibo  colony  was  obtaining  annatto 
dye  by  trade  with  the  natives  through  its  employee  in  the 
Pomeroon. 


406  ADVERSE   HOLDING. 

In  1685  Jacob  de  Jon  go,  who  had  been  previously  in  Esse- 
quibo,  petitioned  to  be  allowed  to  settle  on  the  Poraeroon,  The 
request  led  to  an  examination  of  the  history  of  the  Pomeroon  set- 
tlement, from  which  it  appeared  that  one  of  the  three  cities  which 
had  founded  the  settlement,  as  early  as  1660,  had  made  default  in 
its  quota  of  contributed  capital,  and  that  in  1670  Pomeroon  was 
turned  over  to  the  Company  (B.  C.  I,  188-193). 

As  a  result  of  this  examination  it  was  decided  in  1685  (B.  C. 
I,  1{>3),  to  appoint  De  Jonge  Commandeur  for  the  new  colony  an< 
to  send  out  a  ship.  In  April,  1686,  De  Jonge  arrived,  and  pro- 
ceeded to  establish  himself  on  the  Pomeroon.  His  reports  of  168( 
and  168Y  (B.  C.  I,  199  and  202),  show^  that  at  the  time  of  his  arriva 
the  settlement  in  Pomeroon  had  been  entirely  abandoned;  tha 
there  was  noone  there  except  Baudaart,  the  Outlier,  and  that  o 
the  former  flourishing  colony  of  Nova  Zeelandia  nothing  was  left 
In  the  former  of  these  reports  he  says: 

"I  have  no  doxibt  but  that  the  river  will  shortly  become  inhabited." 

In  the  latter,  he  says: 

"  That  here,  indeed,  there  have  been  some  sick  is  true,  at  which  I  am 
not  astonished,  as  we  came  into  a  closed-in  wood  ;  but  now  there  are  some 
openings." 

The  Pomeroon  thus  became  for  the  time  a  separate  colony 
entirely  independent  of  Essequibo,  and  lying  between  it  mid 
Barima.  De  Jonge  received  only  a  half-hearted  support  from 
Beekman,  the  Commandeur  at  Essequibo.     He  says  (B.  C.  I,  12<»1): 

"The  Postholders"  [Outliers]  "  placed  in  Pomeroon  to  barter  dye  I  iiud 
determined  to  keep,  hut  the  Commandeur  Beekman  said  that  he  had  need  of 
his  people,  so  the  Commandeur  summoned  them  and  made  them  stay  her^ 
at  the  fort." 

The  subsequent  reports  of  De  Jonge,  in  168Y  and  1688  (B.  C.  I^ 
202,  206,  207),  speak  of  the  slow  and  feeble  progress  of  the  colonji 
This  was  much  delayed  by  the  want  of  slaves,  although  a  smajl 
fort  was  erected  and  the  beginnings  of  plantations  were  made. 

All  this  was  brought  to  an  end  in  1689,  when  the  Pomeroc^ 


DUTCH  SETTLEMENT.  407 

was  captured  by  the  French  and  Caribs  from  Bariraa.  The  colo 
nists  betook  themselves  to  Essequibo,  having  no  provisions  left  in 
Pomeroon  (B.  C.  I,  210).  Thereupon  a  resolution  was  passed  by 
the  West  India  Company,  November  15,  1689,  that  everything 
which  had  been  brought  to  the  Pomeroon  on  behalf  of  the  Com- 
pany, both  the  employees  and  slaves  and  other  chattels,  should  be 
removed  from  there  to  Essequibo,  there  to  be  employed  in  the 
service  of  the  Company,  leaving  only  three  men  with  a  flag  for 
the  nmintenance  of  the  Company's  possession  at  Pomeroon  (B.  C. 
I,  211).  This  ends  the  history  of  the  second  Pomeroon  settle- 
ment. 

The  orders  of  the  Company  were  carried  out,  and  from  this 
time  on  an  "Outlier,"  with  three  or  four  men,  two  of  whom 
were  generally  Indians,  were  maintained  at  or  near  that  river, 
chiefly  for  purposes  connected  with  trade. 

The  history  of  the  Pomeroon   during  nearly  the  whole  of  the 

next  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  years  and  until  the  cession  of 

'  the  Establishment  of  Essequibo"  to  the  British,  in   1814,  is  a 

liistory  simply  of  the  post.     The  position  of  the  post  was  changed 

from  time  to  time. 

In  lYOO  it  was  removed  to  the  Wacupo,  a  small  tributary  of 
the  Pomeroon  on  the  west,  from  one  of  whose  branches  a  passage 
through  the  savanna,  not,  however,  apparently  much  in  use,  led 
to  the  Moruka.  For  two  years  the  old  post  was  retained,  and  in 
1704  and  1T05  the  names  of  either  "Outhers"or  "  Byliers  "  at 
both  places  are  to  be  found  in  the  Muster  Rolls  (B.  C.  VII, 
151,  153,  154). 

In  1707  the  Commandeur  suggested  to  the  Company  the  laying 
of  atoll  "  in  the  rivers  Moruka  and  Pomeroon"  on  the  traders 
from  other  colonies  who  pass  through  these  inland  waters  for 
traffic  on  the  Orinoco.  The  plan  was  not  immediately  adopted, 
but  duties  were  subsequently  collected  at  the  post. 

In  1726  Commandeur  Gelskerke  advised  the  removal  of  the 
post    from    Wacupo  to  the  Moruka,    on    the    ground  that  the 


408  ADVERSK  HOLDING. 

Wacupo  was  too  far  out  of  the  ordinary  course  of  boats,  which 
habitually  came  down  the  Moruka  and  passing  over  the  interven- 
ing two  or  three  nailes,  between  its  mouth  and  that  of  the  Pom- 
eroon,  evaded  the  attention  of  the  post  in  Wakupo. 

The  removal  was  made,  though  the  new  post  was  still  often 
called  by  the  old  name,  which  leads  to  some  confusion  in  the 
documents.  The  new  site  was  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Moruka, 
about  twenty  miles  from  its  mouth. 

As  all  boats  coming  from  the  Barima-Waini  district  by  the 
Itabo  entered  the  Moruka,  they  had  to  pass  the  post. 

At  this  point  the  post  remained  with  but  little  interruption 
during  the  greater  part  of  the  century. 

In  1754  it  was  found  that  one  of  the  purposes  for  which  the 
post  at  Moruka  existed,  namely,  the  detection  or  checking  of  run- 
away slaves,  was  not  accomplished  by  it,  for  the  reason  that  the 
favorite  route  of  the  runaways  was  no  longer  by  the  inland  pas- 
sages, but  by  sea,  following  the  westerly  current  that  runs  along 
the  coast. 

In  order  to  capture  the  slaves,  a  subordinate  lookout  w^as 
placed  in  1Y58  at  the  mouth  of  the  Moruka.  It  was  a  house  fifteen 
yards  long,  with  a  stockade  and  gates.  It  was  arranged  with  a 
colonist  named  Beissenteuffel  to  keep  the  watch  at  this  outpost, 
and  as  compensation  he  was  to  be  allowed  to  make  a  plantation 
at  the  mouth  of  the  river  (B.  C,  ).     Soon  after,  however, 

Beissienteuffel  died,  and  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  the  watch- 
house  was  kept  up.  According  to  Hartsinck,  writing  in  1770,  it 
"  has  since  fallen  into  ruin." 

In  1779  the  post  of  Moruca  was  moved  to  the  site  of  the  watch- 
house  at  the  mouth  of  the  river,  and  it  was  occupied  by  a  handful 
of  soldiers.  Here  it  remained  until  the  British  occupation,  in 
1796. 

In  1803,  when  the  Dutch  resumed  possession  for  a  short  time, 
they  found  the  post  in  a  dilapidated  condition. 

The  plantation  upon  which  Beissenteuffel  had  been  allowed  to 


DUTCH  SETTLEMENT.  40^ 

establish  himself  in  compensation  for  his  services  at  the  watch- 
house,  at  the  Moruka  mouth,  passed  into  the  hands  of  a  family 
named  Rousselet,  and  was  in  1769  offered  at  sheriff's  sale,  with  its 
belongings.  In  reply  to  a  complaint  of  the  Rousselets,  the  Court 
of  Policy  stated:  "  This  land  was  granted  without  determination 
of  the  number  of  acres,  and  upon  the  express  condition  that  the 
owner  or  owners  should  be  bound  to  establish  an  outpost  there," 
and  that  it  had  been  "for  a  considerable  time  left  uncultivated  by 
the  petitioner,  in  a  word,  fallen  to  ruin  and  at  nearly  every  tide 
under  water."    (V.  C.  II,  318.) 

This  is  the  plantation  of  which  it  is  said  in  the  British  Case  (p. 
56)  that 

"  In  1771  a  private  estate  of  2,000  acres  in  Moruka,  with  cattle  upon  it, 
came  into  the  market,  and  though  it  seems  to  have  been  in  an  uncultivated 
I  onditiou,  it  found  a  purchaser." 

The  price  paid  was  two  hundred  guilders  (B.  C.  IV,  82),  or 
about  seventy-five  dollars. 

The  Director-General  in  a  report  to  the  Company,  June  27,  1757 
B.  C.  II.,  135),  gave  his  view^s  as  to  the  opening  up  of  the  Pom- 
croon  to  settlement,  which  had  not  been  done  up  to  this  time.  He 
said: 

'*  I  regard  the  River  of  Pomeroon  as  a  district  bringing  no  earthly  profit 
to  the  Honorable  Company;  and  I  am,  moreover,  convinced  that  if  we 
should  at  any  time  be  so  fortunate  as  to  see  this  river  and  Demerary  fully 
inhabited  (which  is  not  to  be  expected  for  the  next  tifty  years),  since  quite 
300  plantations,  and  possibly  more  witli  a  little  trouble,  can  still  be  laid 
out,  no  one  Avould  then  be  kept  from  settling  in  Pomeroon  by  the  fact  that 
there  was  no  boureway  wood  left  there." 

The  report  of  the  Director-General,  June  15,  175S  (B.  C.  II, 
142),  says  that  "  about  ten  or  twelve  years  ago  the  Court  of  Policy 
granted  permission  to  one  Erasmus  Felderman  to  live  in  that  river 
and  plant  his  necessary  bread,  without,  however,  possessing  any 
land  in  proderty."  At  the  death  of  Felderman,  his  heir  wanted  to 
own  this  land,  but  his  request  was  denied  by  the  Council. 

During   this  whole  period   from   the  extinction  of  the  second 


410  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

Pomeroon  colony,  in  1689,  there  was  no  settlement  in  the  Pome- 
roon,  with  the  two  exceptions  named. 

Grants  were  made  at  the  time  of  the  French  occupation  in 
1784  to  French  colonists,  but  before  they  could  begin  work  the 
French  had  withdrawn  and  the  Dutch  were  once  more  in  pos- 
session of  the  Post  of  Moruka. 

After  this  resumption  of  possession,  in  1Y84,  frequent  applica- 
tions were  made  for  lands  in  the  Pomeroon,  but  no  action  could 
be  taken  on  these  until  the  district  had  been  surveyed,  which  was 
only  accomplished  in  1794. 

In  1796  the  British  took  possession  of  the  Essequibo  colony, 
and  at  that  time  nothing  had  been  done  towards  the  settlement 
of  the  Pomeroon,  This  occupation  ended  in  1802,  and  for  some 
months  the  colony  was  again  in  Dutch  hands,  at  which  time  it 
is  possible  that  the  beginning  of  a  settlement  may  have  been 
made. 

The  conclusions  as  to  the  Pomeroon  are  as  follows: 

(1.)  The  only  settlements,  properly  so-called,  in  the  Pomeroon 
were  those  from  1658  to  1665,  and  from  1686  to  1689,  both  of 
which  were  entirely  destroyed  by  foreign  invasion. 

(2.)  Of  isolated  plantations,  there  is  one  on  the  Pomeroon 
(1746  to  1758)  of  Felderman,  who  was  granted  permission  to 
raise  bread  enough  to  keep  him  alive,  but  without  owning  any 
land,  and  whose  plantation  reverted  to  the  Colony  at  his  deatii. 
In  Moruka,  there  was  the  case  of  Beissenteufel,  whose  planta- 
tion really  grew  out  of  his  employment  as  the  occupant  of  tlio 
watch-house  at  the  Moruka  mouth,  and  which  finally  also  re- 
verted to  the  Colony.  These  cannot  be  said  to  answer  any  of 
the  required  tests  of  settlement  and  they  cannot  be  connected  with- 
the  colonies  of  the  previous  century,  by  reason  of  the  long  lapse  of 
time. 

One  point  remains  to  be  noticed  in  connection  with  the  Pome^! 
roon:  the  line  of  occupation,  if  occupation  it  should  be  judged^ 
which  the  Dutch  maintained  or  attempted   to  maintain  in  thid 


DUTCH   SETTLEMENT.  411 

district  is  well  defined.  Its  extreme  western  limit  was  marked  by 
the  upper  post  on  the  Moruka.  W  hate ver  the  occupation  amounted 
to,  it  never  extended  a  foot  beyond  this  post.  A  little  further  to  the 
westward  the  Moruka  itself  ceases  to  have  any  importance  and 
the  savanna  begins,  through  which  by  more  or  less  artificial  means 
and  with  considerable  interruption  and  uncertainty  a  passage  in  the 
rainy  season  was  effected  to  the  Coast  Territory  lying  to  the  west. 
So  far  as  natural  boundaries  are  concerned,  this  savanna  would 
seem  to  be  the  natural  boundary.  It  so  happens  that  the  same  mer- 
idian to  which  reference  has  already  been  made  in  speaking  of  the 
western  limits  of  settlement  in  Essequibo  crosses  this  savanna— the 
meridian  of  59°  west.  It  has  been  already  stated  that  the  creeks 
which  are  the  tributaries  of  the  lower  Essequibo  on  the  west  all 
lie  to  the  eastward  of  this  meridian. 

It  is  also  to  be  noticed  that  the  territory  to  the  east  of  this  line 
includes  thewhole  of  the  Pomeroon  and  its  tributaries,  the  whole  of 
the  Wacupo,  the  streams  by  which  the  Wacupo  and  the  Moruka 
are  connected,  and  all  of  the  bed  of  the  Moruka  that  lay  within 
the  confines  of  the  highest  Dutch  post,  as  well  as  a  considerable 
stretch  of  territory  beyond. 

If  the  Pomeroon  and  Moruka  should  be  decided  to  be  within 
the  limits  of  Dutch  holding,  the  natural  line  of  demarcation  be- 
tween this  holding  and  that  of  the  Spanish  would  not  be  beyond 
this  meridian. 

(3.)  Territory  in  the  Interior. 

The  large  tract  of  territory  between  the  Essequibo  and  the 
Orinoco  south  of  the  Imataka  Mountains,  was,  during  the  whole 
of  the  Dutch  ownership  of  Essequibo,  divided  between  forests,  and 
savanna  or  meadow  land.  There  was  no  exact  line  of  demarca- 
tion between  the  two,  nor  was  there  any  exact  location  that  the 
word  "  savanna  "  indicated.  The  western  part  of  this  territory 
was  entirely  open  savanna,  and  the  extreme  eastern  part  was 


412  ADVERSE  HOLDINGf. 

a  wilderness,  difficult  of  access.  The  middle  region  was  partly 
savanna  and  partly  forest. 

Through  this  district  the  rivers  Ciiyuni  and  Massaruni  take 
their  course.  The  Cuyuni  is  300  miles  long  and  has  many  tribu- 
taries, so  that  its  drainage  basin  extends  across  the  whole  district 
and  approaches  to  within  20  miles  of  the  banks  of  the  Orinoco. 
The  Massaruni  is  200  miles  long,  and  winds  through  the  interior 
of  the  district.  The  falls,  just  above  the  mouths  of  the  rivers, 
render  them  impassable  to  navigation. 

The  Court  of  Policy,  in  a  letter  to  the  West  India  Company, 
July  14,  1731  (B.  C.  11,   14),  stated: 

"The  great  number  of  rocks  which  lie  in  these  two  rivers,  and  which 
occasion  the  falls  by  reason  of  the  strong  stream  rnshing  over  them,  makes 
these  rivers  unnavigable  for  large  vessels,  wherefore  it  is  impossible  to  es- 
tablish any  plantations  there,  althougli  the  soil  is  very  well  fitted  for  it." 

This  shows  conclusively  that  no  settlements  had  been  made  in 
Massaruni  or  Cuyuni  above  the  falls. 

The  point  of    view  from   which   the  colonists  regarded   the 

Cuyuni  is  shown  by'the  failure  to  sell  the  indigo  plantation  at  the 

falls  in  1748.     As  Storm  said  (V.  C.  II,  55): 

"Not  one  person  was  willing  to  bid  a  single  stiver  thereon,  presumably 
on  account  of  the  great  distance  and  the  insalubrity  of  the  River  Cuyuni." 

In  1750,  Storm  advocated  more  settlers,  and  said  (B.  C.  II,  QQ) 

that: 

"  Hereby  the  colony  would  obtain  a  flourishing  and,  in  course  of  time, 
a  formidable  state,  and  the  interior  {which  is  unknown)  could  be  explored 
and  cultivated,  the  lands  which  lie  along  the  river  devoted  to  growing 
sugar  and  rice,  and  those  in  the  interior  to  other  crops,  by  which  many  dis- 
coveries could  doubtless  be  made  which  would  bring  great  utility  and 
profit.  For  this  nothing  is  lacking  but  able  and  industrious  people,  and  it 
is  a  shame  (if  I  may  use  the  word)  for  the  Dutch,  that  two  nations  not  to 
be  compared  to  them  for  industry,  namely,  the  Portuguese  and  the 
Spaniards,  who  are  situated  at  the  right  and  left  of  these  colonies  and  who 
are  groaning  under  so  hard,  even  slavish,  a  rule,  are  owners  of  so  many 
treasures  and  so  fortunate  in  their  discoveries.     .    .     . 


DUTCH   SETTLEMENT.  413 

"The  reason  why  so  little  has  been  discovered  is  that  the  old  settlers 
tlirough  rooted  habit  and  those  born  in  the  colony  through  an  inborn  indif- 
ference, so  strongly  cling  to  their  old  way  that  nothing,  not  even  convinc- 
ing reasoning  can  tear  them  away  from  it,  and  nothing  in  the  world  can 
induce  them  to  any  new  undertaking,  there  being  among  them  no  indus- 
trious and  enterprising  persons." 

It  is  evident  from  this  that  no  Dutch  settlement  existed  in  the 
interior.  The  country  was,  however,  frequently  traversed  by 
white  traders,  Spaniards,  French  and  Dutch.  Tiie  trade  there 
was  a  trade  in  provisions,  hammocks,  annatto  dye,  and  copaiba. 
If  the  evidence  contains  more  frequent  references  to  Dutch  trade 
than  Spanish,  it  is  because  the  colonial  authorities  in  Essequibo, 
being  the  agents  of  a  trading  company,  were  obliged  to  report  on 
it,  while  the  others  were  not.  During  the  years  1680  to  1683  the 
trade  of  the  Dutch  was  much  interrupted  by  a  war  between  the 
native  tribes,  which  is  frequently  referred  to  in  the  reports  of  the 
Commandeur.     (V.  C.  11.,  40,  41,  43,  44.) 

In  1684  Beekman,  the  Commandeur,  complains  (V.  C.  II,  45) 
that  "the  copaiba  and  curcai  aie  much  bought  up  by  the  Span- 
iards." In  1685  he  complains  of  the  ITrench  in  the  upper  Cuyuni, 
who  "gather  the  copaiba  from  the  trees"  (V.  C.  II,  52).  In  1686 
he  says  (V.  C.  II,  58):  "  The  French  scour  the  country  up  there 
and  buy  up  everything." 

Many  references  are  made  to  the  horse  trade  in  Cuyuni  about 
the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century,  a  trade  conducted  with 
the  Spaniards,  by  whom  the  horses  were  raised.  At  a  later  date 
this  trade  was,  for  a  time,  prohibited  to  the  Dutch  by  the 
Spaniards. 

In  the  middle  of  the  century  Spanish  traders  overran  the 
Cuyuni  district,  and  it  was  their  regular  practice  to  come  down  to 
the  Essequibo  colony  to  trade;  so  much  so  that  it  was  necessary 
to  make  regulations  to  induce  them  not  to  stop  and  do  all  their 
trading  at  the  upper  plantations,  but  to  come  down  to  the  Com- 
pany's Essequibo  post  at  Flag  Island.    (B.  C.  II,  .) 


414  ADVERSE   HOLDING. 

The  present  chapter  is  not  a  description  of  settlements  in  this 
territory,  because  of  settlements  there  were  none.  It  is  an  abso- 
lute and  incontrovertible  fact,  as  far  as  the  evidence  in  this  pro- 
ceeding shows,  that  the  Dutch  never  had  a  single  settlement  of 
any  kind  whatsoever  between  the  falls  of  the  Cuyuni  and  Mas- 
saruni  on  the  one  hand  and  the  Orinoco  on  the  other.  There  is 
not  the  remotest  allusion  in  all  the  papers  here  presented  to  such 
a  settlement.  There  is,  as  already  stated,  considerable  allusion  to 
the  transit  over  this  territory  of  Indians  and  of  Spaniards, 
French  and  Dutch  for  trading  purposes,  the  last  consisting  prin- 
cipally of  old  negroes  familiar  with  the  country,  who  were  used 
as  roving  traders  by  the  Dutch  for  traffic  in  annatto  dye, 
cassava  bread,  and  horses.  Reference  is  also  made  to  one 
or  two  places  called  "dye  stores"  or  "dyehouses"  in  the 
Cuyuni  and  Massaruni,  meaning  thereby  places  where  the 
annatto  dye,  whicTi  was  one  of  the  principal  objects  of  trade, 
was  sold  by  the  Indians  to  the  various  white  traders.  Pos- 
sibly other  products  of  tiade  were  brought  theie,  such  as  the 
dried  cassava  root  prepared  by  the  Indians,  and  generally  used 
both  by  Spaniards  and  Dutch  as  a  substitute  for  bread.  The 
British  Case,  singularly  enough,  mentions  (p.  81)  these  "annatto 
stores"  as  evidences  of  Dutch  political  control.  There  is  not  a 
particle  of  evidence  to  show  that  the  Dutch  had  anything  to  do 
with  erecting  or  maintaining  them,  or  that  they  were  otherwise 
than  mere  shelters  of  the  Indians  to  which  all  traders,  Spanish 
and  French,  as  well  as  Dutch,  resorted  for  trading. 

The  only  fact  which  can  be  connected  with  a  local  habitation  [ 
and  a  name  on  the  i)art  of  the  Dutch  in  the  interior  territory  is  | 
the  establishment  of  so-called  "  posts"  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  ! 
Cuyuni  River.  The  first  reference  to  these  posts  is  in  1703,  when  | 
the  Muster-RoU  of  the  colony  (B.  C.  VII,  152-3)  refers  to  various  i 
outHers,  including  one  Allart  Lammers,  as  outlier,  in  the  River  | 
Cuyuni.  Two  Muster-RoUs  contain  this  entry,  one  of  June  14, 
1703,  the  other  of  July  27,  1703.     Other  Muster-Rolls  are  given, 


DUTCH   SETTLEMENT.  415 

both  before  and  after  this  period,  extending  from  1691  to  1786, 
but  no  farther  mention  of  an  outlier  in  Cuyuni  occurs  until  1755. 
The  entry  is  confirmed  and  explained  by  the  pay-roll  of  1704  (V. 
C.  II,  71).  The  pay-roll  shows  that  AUart  Lammers  was  enrolled 
May  20,  1703,  in  the  Company's  service  as  "outlier  in  Cuyuni." 
On  October  1,  1703,  he  was,  by  sentence  of  the  Court,  placed  as 
sailor  on  the  yacht,  evidently  for  misconduct,  and  his  wages  from 
the  period  of  his  appointment,  namely,  four  months  and  eleven 
days,  were  confiscated. 

It  is  clear  from  the  above  that  an  intention  existed  to  establish 
a  trading  post  in  Cuyuni,  which  was  to  be  located  somewhere  "  in 
the  savannas  "  of  that  river,  six  weeks  by  water  "  fi'om  Kykoveral." 
It  is  clear,  also,  that  Lammers  was  appointed  as  outlier  or  trading 
agent  for  this  prujected  post;  but  as  he  was  removed  for  misconduct 
on  the  first  of  October,  he  never  could  have  gone  to  his  post.  He 
could  not  possibly  have  gone  to  his  post,  have  been  reported  for 
misconduct,  and  have  been  recalled  in  consequence,  tried  and  sen- 
tenced and  placed  on  board  of  the  yacht  in  the  four  months  and 
eleven  days  referred  to.  It  is  obvious  that  Lammers  never  went 
lo  his  so-called  post,  and  that  the  post  never  existed  except  in  the 
intention  of  the  Commandeur.  The  office  or  employment  disap- 
l>ears  from  the  muster-roll,  and  does  not  reappear  for  more  than 
half  a  century. 

The  explanation  of  the  project  and  its  abandonment  is  very 
clear.  Tlie  most  important  trade  in  the  Cuyuni  valley  at  this 
period  was  the  horse  trade.  The  headquarters  of  this  trade  were 
ill  the  savannas  near  the  upper  Cuyuni,  where  the  Spaniards 
lised  and  pastured  their  hoises.  In  the  previous  year  (V.  C.  II, 
'•5)  the  Commandeur  had  reported  that  "the  trade  in  horses  up  in 
Cuyuni  does  not  go  as  briskly  as  it  used  to,"  and  it  was  doubtless 
with  a  view  to  stimulate  this  trade  that  he  conceived  the  idea,  in 
the  spring  of  1703,  of  sending  an  Outlier  to  stay  there.  In  that 
very  summer  he  reported  (V.  C.  TI,  69)  that  "  the  Spaniards  will 
no  longer  permit  any  trafficking  for  horses  on   their  territory." 


416  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

He  therefore  concluded  that  it  would  be  of  uo  use  to  send  an 
Outlier,  and  Lanimers,  who  had  in  the  meantime  shown  his  un- 
fitness, was  placed  on  board  the  yacht. 

In  1755,  fifty-two  years  after  the  abortive  appointment  of 
Lammers,  the  first  "post"  was  established  in  the  Cuyuni.  This 
post  is  located  with  exactness  by  a  letter  of  the  Commandeur  on 
the  subject,  in  answer  to  a  specific  inquiry  by  the  Company  as  to 
its  location.     He  said  (B.  C.  H,  180): 

"  The  post  .  .  .  was  situated  about  Jifteen  hours  above  the  place 
where  Cuyuni  unites  with  Massaruni." 

The  "hour"  used  by  Storm,  not  as  measure  of  time,  but 
always  as  a  measure  of  distance,  had  a  definite  meaning,  and  it  is 
shown  on  the  map  which  he  prepared  for  the  Company  in  1748 
(Atlas  Ven.,  map  60)  to  be  about  three  English  statute  miles, 
which  would  make  it  about  forty-five  miles  above  the  junction  of 
the  two  rivers,  or  thirty  miles  above  the  lowest  fall. 

This  site  of  the  post  is  confirmed  by  the  statements  made  by 
the  Outlier  and  Bylier  who  were  captured  at  the  Post,  Stephen 
Iskes  (called  in  the  Spanish  Estevan  Hiz)  and  Guilliaam  Patist 
de  Bruyn  (called  in  the  Spanish  Juan  Bautista  Brum),  before  the 
Spanish  Magistrate  as  to  its  location  (B.  C.  II,  166-167),  both  of 
whom  stated  that  it  was  a  place  called  "  Cuiba,"  on  the  banks  of 
the  Cuyuni,  which  would  be  the  ordinary  Si)anish  spelling  of 
"Quiva." 

The  only  place  bearing  this  name  on  the  banks  of  the  Cuyuni 
is  at  a  point  about  fifteen  miles  above  the  Tonoma  rapids,  where 
a  small  stream,  the  Quive-Kuru,  enters  the  Cuyuni  frorn  the 
north. 

Sheet  1  in  the  Atlas  of  the  British  Case  places  "the  probable 
site"  of  the  Dutch  post  of  1755  close  to  the  mouth  of  the 
Acarabisi,  about  sixty  miles  further  up  the  river.  For  the 
location  there  is  not  the  slightest  foundation.  The  name  as 
the  Quive-Kuru  has  also  been  misspelled  on  this  map  of 
"  Querrikuru,"     and    its    position     has    been    transposed  with 


I 


DUTCH  SETTLEMENT.  417 

that  of  the  Yanekuru,  the  adjoining  stream.  In  the  same 
Atlas  (British  Appendix),  however,  the  correct  location  and 
spelling,  "  Quivekuru,"  are  given  in  Maps  38  (Hebert — the 
official  map  of  1842,  prepared  in  the  Quartermaster  General's 
office),  40  (Mahlmann),  41  (a  map  prepared,  revised  and  corrected 
to  1875  by  Chalmers,  the  Crown  Surveyor  of  the  Colony,  and 
Sawkins,  Director  of  the  Geological  Survey  of  British  Guiana),  42 
(a  map  prepared,  revised  and  corrected  to  1886  by  Chalmers  and 
Sawkins),  44  (Schomburgk— where  the  spelling  is  ''  Quive  Kuru  "), 
46  (Schomburgk),  and  47  (Schomburgk).* 

The  muster-rolls  show  the  number  of  persons  employed  by  the 
Company  at  this  point.  In  1755-56  there  was  only  Neuman,  the 
Outlier  or  Postholder.  In  1757  there  was  also  a  Bylier  or  Assist- 
ant. In  August,  1758,  there  were  still  the  Outlier,  fskes,  and  the 
Bylier,  Bruyn.  These  are  the  only  entries  in  reference  to  the 
post. 

The  object  of  the  post  was  to  assist  in  the  recovery  of  fugitive 
slaves,  to  promote  the  trade  with  the  Caribs  in  poitos  or  Indian 
slaves,  and  to  see  that  the  Dut(;h  colonists  did  not  engage  in  the 
Company's  trade. 

In  1758  a  detachment  from  the  Spanish  garrison  was  sent, 
under  the  order  of  the  Commandant  of  Guayana,  for  the  purpose 
of  destroying  the  post  and  apprehending  its  occupants  (B.  C.  II, 
150).  The  expedition  proceeded  in  August  and  September,  under 
Captain  Bonalde.  Bonalde  found  the  post,  consisting  of  a  hut 
covered  with  palm  branches  and  without  side  walls,  the  ordinary 
;  form  of  the  "shelter"  or  "rest-house"  in  that  country,  and 
taking  the  Outlier,  the  Bylier  and  their  servants,  carried  them  off 
'  as  prisoners  to  Santo  Thome  and  afterwards  to  Cumana.  He  also 
destroyed  the  shelter. 

Thus  ended  the  post  of  1755,  after  an  existence  of  three  years. 
It  was  never  re-established. 

'  A  complete  and  conclusive  discussion  of  the  locality  of  this  post  is  to  be  found  in  App. 
Ven.  C.-C.  II,  1.50-65. 


418  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

In  a  report  of  February  22,  1763  (B.  C.  II,  221),  the  Director 
recommended  to  the  Company  that  a  new  post  should  be  estab- 
lished in  the  Cuyuni,  which  recommendation  was  approved  by  the 
Company  July  7,  1763  (B.  C.  II,  225),  and  men  were  sent  out  to 
be  employed  for  that  purpose  after  a  special  duty  in  Demerara 
was  completed.  In  the  same  year,  the  Commandeur  referred  to 
it  (V.  C.  II,  154)  as  "  the  still-abandoned  post  in  Cajoeny,  aban- 
doned since  the  raid  of  the  Spaniards." 

Time  passed,  but  the  Post  in  the  Cuyuni  was  not  re-established. 

The  Director  reported  to  the  Company,  December  28,  1764  (B.  C. 

Ill,  117): 

**I  have  uot  been  able  to  get  any  Indians  up  to  the  present  to  aid  me  in 
re-establishing  the  post  in  Cuyuni,  and  without  their  help  it  cannot  be 
done." 

In  1766  the  post  was  not  yet  established.  In  that  year  Storm 
wrote  (V.  C.  II,  164): 

"  I  have  already  engaged  a  Postholder  [for  Cuyuni],  who  is  well  acquainted 
with  Indian  languages,  and  as  soon  as  some  of  the  buildings  are  ready  I  will 
give  him  a  commando  of  one  under-oflBcer  and  six  men  to  begin  with,  until 
it  is  well  established." 

The  Director-General  was  unable  to  find  the  men,  and  con- 
cluded to  wait  for  them.  In  October,  1766,  he  wrote  (V.  C.  II, 
167)  that— 

"  The  Postholder  of  Cajoeny  will,  in  the  beginning  of  September, 
.  .  .  proceed  up  that  river,  in  order  to  build  dwellings  and  lay  out 
bread-gardens,  with  the  assistance  of  the  Indians,  after  which  the  work 
there  will  be  properly  regulated." 

He  was  disappointed,  however,  by  the  illness  of  the  Postholder 
shortly  after  his  arrival. 

On  December  3,  1766  (V.  C.  II,  167),  he  reported; 

"  The  Postholder  of  Cajoeny  is,  according  to  the  latest  reports,  lying  ill 
at  the  Post.  This  is  a  great  pity,  because  he  makes  great  progress  in  his 
work,  and  we  should  lose  a  great  deal  in  him.  But  sickness  is  the  fate 
which  overtakes  all,  without  exception,  who  proceed  up  the  Cajoeny  for 
the  first  time,  especially  in  the  dry  season,  which  still  continues." 


DUTCH   SETTLEMENT.  419 

A  week  later  (V.  C.  II,  16Y)  he  wrote  that  he  had  given  the 
Postholder  provisionally  two  assistants,  but 

"  I  dare  not  trust  any  of  the  soldiers  here  to  go  there.  He  is  at  present 
engaged  in  putting  up  the  dwellings  and  in  bringing  the  Post  into  some 
order. " 

On  March  9,  1767,  the  Company  (Zeeland  Chamber)  wrote  to 
the  Director-General  (V.  C.  II,  168): 

*'  The  transferring  of  the  post  in  Cuyuni,  as  also  the  work  at  the  Fort, 
appears  to  us  to  advance  rather  slowly,  and  we  shall  be  glad  to  learn  that 
both  these  tasks,  in  accordance  with  the  hope  which  you  give  us  thereof, 
are  at  last  finished." 

In  this  year  the  post  may  be  said  to  have  been  finally  estab- 
lished. Its  location,  below  the  first  post,  has  been  discussed  in 
another  place  (p.        ). 

In  a  letter  of  the  Director-General,  June  27,  1767,  he  said  (V. 
C.  II,  170): 

"From  my  preceding  letter  you  will  have  seen  that  the  post  in  Cuyuni 
is  already  in  order  (except  a  few  soldiers)." 

These  soldiers  were  never  sent. 

It  did  not,  however,  work  satisfactorily,  as  will  be  shown  later, 

when  we  come  to  consider  it  as  a  factor  in  political  control. 

In  a  report  of  April  9,  1768  (B.  C.  Ill,  164)  the  Director  said: 

"  Having  also  been  obliged  to  remove  Pierre  Martin,  the  Postholder  of 
Cuyuni  (because  the  Indians  will  on  no  account  have  a  Frenchman  there) 
as  well  as  the  one  in  Maroco,  I  have  no  one  there  now  but  the  two  assist- 
ants ...  In  Cuyuni  it  is  now  quiet  so  long  as  it  lasts;  I  wish  I  had 
a  competent  Postholder  for  that  river." 

Early  in  1769  the  two  Assistants  or  Byliers,  Van  Witting  and 
Van  Leeuwen,  were  much  alarmed  by  rumors  of  a  threatened 
attack  on  the  post  by  Spaniards  and  Indians  from  the  Massaruni 
(B.  C.  IV,  1).  These  rumors  continued  to  grow  until  in  a  panic 
•they  decided  to  abandon  the  post,  without  authority,  and  remove 
t  to  an  island  some  miles  nearer  to  Essequibo,  in  fact  but  a  short 
listance  above  the  lowest  falls  (V.  C.    II,  189).      The  position 


420  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

selected  at  Toenamoeto,  an  "island,"  as  Van  Witting  states, 
*' lying  between  two  falls,"  was  evidently  selected  on  account  of 
its  obscurity  and  remoteness  from  possible  attack.  The  Director- 
General  was  obliged  to  acquiesce,  although  doubtless  realizing 
that  in  that  position  it  would  be  of  no  use  whatever. 

In  June  of  that  year  Van  Witting  asked  for  his  discharge. 
He  remained,  however,  during  the  following  year  and  the  next, 
when  his  service  was  cut  short  by  death,  as  is  stated  in  the  pay- 
roll for  1YY2. 

The  second  Bylier  seems  to  have  served  out  his  year  and  then 
returned  to  the  ranks  of  the  garrison. 

This  ended  the  last  post  in  Cuyuni. 

The  history  of  the  posts  in  the  interior,  therefore,  shows: 

(1.)  An  intention  to  create  a  post  in  1Y03,  at  a  locality  which 
cannot  be  ascertained,  which  was  never  carried  out. 

(2.)  The  first  post  at  Quive-Kuru,  forty-five  miles  from  the 
mouth  of  the  Cuyuni,  which  lasted  from  1Y55  to  1758,  when  it 
was  destroyed  by  force,  by  direction  of  the  Spanish  Commandant. 

(3.)  The  second  post  at  a  point  lower  down  the  river,  froiii| 
1Y66  to  1769.  •  I 

(4.)  The  third  post  at  Toenamoeto,  between  the  falls  of  the 
Cuyuni,  from  the  abandonment  of  the  last-named  post,  from  1769^ 
to  1772.  i 

Of  course  these  posts  were  not  settlements.  That  is  a  question 
which  it  is  needless  to  discuss.  There  was  not  a  single  attribute 
of  a  settlement  about  them.  Each  of  them  consisted  of  a  rudef 
hut,  temporarily  occupied  by  one  or  two  employees  for  the  pur- 
pose of  attending  to  matters  of  trade  in  which  the  West  India 
Company  was  interested.  They  were  not  the  homes  of  these 
employees.  They  were  not  places  where  colonists  fixed  their 
abode.  Their  occupants  were  not  even  squattei-s,  for  all  they  did 
was  to  reside  there  temporarily  for  the  performance  of  their 
duties.  Nor  did  the  posts  fulfill  the  requirement  of  the  rule  as  ta 
fifty  years'  duration.  * 


DUTCH  SETTLEMENT.  421 

Beyond  these  posts  there  is  nothing  that  bears  the  faintest 
suggestion  of  Dutch  settlement  in  this  district.  There  is  no  evi- 
dence that  the  Dutch  were  ever  present  there  except  individually 
as  traders,  and  occasionally  on  the  extreme  eastern  border  for  the 
purpose  of  recapturing  runaway  slaves.  Of  course  the  traders, 
when  they  went  into  the  district,  spent  some  time  there.  The 
difficulties  of  navigating  the  river  and  the  impassable  character 
of  the  forest  made  progress  necessarily  slow.  It  took  six  weeks 
to  reach  the  upper  Cuyuni,  and  trade  in  those  regions  was  neces- 
sarily subject  to  great  delays.  Traders  were  therefore  absent  for 
a  considerable  time,  but  their  presence  under  such  conditions  in 
the  territory  did  not  constitute  in  any  sense  of  the  word  a  settle- 
ment. 

Not  only  is  there  no  reference  in  the  evidence  to  such  a  settle- 
ment, but  the  whole  course  of  the  correspondence  of  the  Dutch 
Governor  shows  clearly  that  there  were  none.  It  is  not  possible 
that  the  Director-General  could  have  written  the  letters  of  which 
extracts  have  been  given  in  discussing  the  question  of  boundary  if 
there  had  been  a  settlement  anywhere  in  the  Cuyuni  valley.  One 
reason  for  this  clearly  was  that  the  character  of  the  country  im- 
mediately west  of  Essequibo,  including  the  river  Cuyuni,  instead 
i  of  offering  avenues  for  settlement,  presented  nothing  but  obstruc- 
tions which  only  the  most  hardy  and  enterprising  could  overcome. 

During  the  same  period  the  interior  territory  was  penetrated 
from  the  west  by  the  Spaniards,  and  numerous  settlements 
were  made  there  in  connection  with  their  missions,  at  which 
houses  were  built,  plantations  cultivated,  crops  and  cattle 
raised,  trade  carried  on,  Indians  pacified,  converted  and  civ- 
ilized, and  all  of  this  continued  from  nearly  the  beginning  of 
the  eighteenth  century  down  to  the  time  of  the  Venezuelan 
revolution,  in  181Y.  There  is  no  doubt  about  the  existence 
of  these  settlements.  The  evidence  is  full  of  references  to 
them  and  detailed  reports  upon  them.  The  numerous  lists 
of    them     given    in    the    evidence     annexed    to     both    cases 


■ 


422  ADVERSE   HOLDING. 

show  that  they  numbered  about  thirty.  Their  existence  and 
their  flourishing  character  are  admitted  by  the  British  Case. 
They  began  in  the  territory  close  to  the  Orinoco,  and  they 
advanced  further  and  further  as  time  went  on.  The  fort 
estabh'shed  in  1792  at  the  mouth  of  the  Curumo  was  on  the 
south  bank  of  the  Cuyuni.  Besides  those  mentioned  in  the 
savanna  region,  three  others  are  named  at  outlying  points, 
namely,  on  the  Wenarau,  a  tributary  on  the  right  bank  of  the 
Cayuni,  on  the  Massaruni,  and  on  the  Siparuni,  a  tributary  of  the 
Essequibo  itself.  The  last  three  rest  upon  the  concurrent  evidence 
of  one  of  the  most  prominent  Dutch  colonists,  the  Dutch  Post- 
holder  of  Arinda.  and  of  one  of  the  Jesuit  mission  fathers,  all 
reported  by  the  Director-General  himself.     (B.  C.  .) 

There  would  be  no  need  to  discuss  the  question  of  Dutch  set- 
tlement were  it  not  for  the  amazing  statements  made  upon  that 
subject  in  the  British  Case.  These  must  be  taken  up  in  detail. 
First  of  all,  however,  we  must  note  the  effect  of  placing  on  the 
general  map  of  the  territory  in  dispute  (Map  1  Br.  Atlas)  a  num- 
ber of  designations,  with  every  appearance  of  town-sites,  to  which 
the  name  "  Dutch  residence  "  is  attached.  One  of  these  is  on 
the  Tocupo,  a  branch  of  the  Curumo.  A  second  is  on  the  upper 
Cuyuni,  above  Uruan.  A  third  is  on  the  Avechica,  near  its  junc- 
tion with  the  Uruan.  A  fourth  is  near  the  Wenamu.  At  the 
mouth  of  the  Curumo,  on  the  western  or  northerly  bank  of  the 
Cuyuni,  is  what  is  called  a  ''Dutch  Settlement  1750."  A  casual 
inspection  of  this  map  would  lead  one  to  suppose  that  there  was  a 
good  deal  more  in  the  way  of  Dutch  settlement  in  this  negihbor- 
hood  han  on  the  banks  of  the  Essequibo.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
there  was  neither  a  Dutch  settlement  nor  the  abode  of  an  indi- 
vidual Dutchman  at  a  single  one  of  these  points.  The  evidence  aat 
to  these  so-called  "residences"  and  "settlements"  will  be' 
referred  to  in  detail. 

The  British  Case  is  also  misleading  (p.  31)  in  its  reference  ta| 
the  early  posts: 


DUTCH   SETTLEMENT.  423 

"  The  first  muster-roll  of  the  Company's  servants  which  has  been  pre- 
served, viz.,  for  the  year  1691,  includes  the  names  of  the  Postholders  at 
Pomeroon  and  Deraerara.  The  muster-roll  for  the  year  1703  includes,  in 
addition  to  the  Postholders  in  the  Rivers  Deraerara,  Mahaicony,  and  the 
Pomeroon,  the  name  of  the  Postholder  in  Cuyuni  '  up  in  the  savannah  six 
weeks  by  water.'"  The  position  so  described  is  clearly  very  distant,  the 
savannah  referred  to  being  the  Pariacot  Savannah.  The  approximate  site, 
which  cannot  have  been  lower  than  the  junction  of  the  Yuruari  with  the 
Uruan,  is  marked  on  the  Map  in  the  Atlas,  p.  1." 

mk   From  the  above  statement  it  would  appear  that  the  British 
Case  is  here  giving  some  general  information  as  to  the  posts, 
derived  from  the  muster-rolls.     It  says  in  substance  that  the  first 
one  includes  the  names  of  those  at  Pomeroon  and  Demerara;  that 
for  1703  includes,  in  addition  to  the  two  Postholders  named  and 
that  of  Mahaicony,  the  name  of  the  Postholder  in  Cuyuni.     It  is 
difficult   to   read    the   passage  without    forming    the   conclusion 
that  from   the   year  1691    there  were    posts   at    Pomeroon    and 
Demerara  and  from  the  year  1703  there  was  an  additional  post  in 
Cuyuni.     The  fact  is  not  stated  that  no  allusion  to  the  Postholder 
j  in  Cuyuni,  or  to  any  Postholder  in  that  region,  occurs  again  after 
1703  until  1755,  when  the  post  ultimately  destroyed  by  the  Span- 
iards was  established.     Nor  is  the  very  material  fact  stated  that 
there  is  no  evidence  that  the  Postholder  mentioned  in  1703  ever 
went  to  the  post,  or  that  Lammers,  who  was  appointed  on  the 
20th  of  May,  was  discharged  for  insubordination  on  the  first  of 
October—  a  fact  which  would  have  precluded  the  possibility  of  his 
having  been  at  the  post  at  all,  and  which  shows  that  the  post, 
,  though  proposed,  was  never  established.     The  climax,  however,  to 
I  the  statement  about  this  mythical  post  is  reached  when  the  Case 
I  gravely   refers  to  an  approximate  site  which  has  been  marked 
)\  upon  the  Map  (Sheet  1,   Br.   Atlas),  where  we  find  a  location  in 
i|  the  neighborhood  of  Cura,  one  of  the  Spanish  missions,  marked 
*'  Dutch  post  before  1703,"  with  no  indication  that  the  locality  so 
I  marked  is  a  purely  conjectural  site  of  a  post  of  which  there  is  no 
evidence  to  show  the  existence. 


424  ADVERSE   HOLDliNG. 

Again,  it  is  stated  at  page  48  of  the  British  Case,  that  "lu  1769 
the  Prefect  of  the  Missions  reported  that  a  Dutchman  had  been 
eight  years  domiciled  in  the  River  Aguirre,  and  that  Dutch  fami- 
lies had  been  living  at  the  mouth  of  the  Curumo." 

It  is  true  that  the  Prefect  states  that  a  Dutchman  had  been 

domiciled  with  the  Caribs  more  than  eight  years  in  the  River 

Aguirre,  "  buying  slaves  from  them  "  (B.  C.  IV,  20).     He  goes  on 

to  say : 

"There  were  also  others  in  the  same  traffic  in  Puruey,  Caara,  and  Pa- 
rava,  from  where  they  used  to  send  to  Essequibo  and  Surinam  parties  of 
from  twenty  to  fifty  slaves,  and  they  discontinued  in  alarm  at  the  arrival  of 
the  Royal  Commission  in  the  Orinoco." 

The  fact  that  a  Dutch  slave  trader  v^^as  eight  years  in  the 
Aguirre  has  no  bearing  upon  the  present  case  except  to  show  that 
the  Dutch  trade  was  extended  to  territory  confessedly  Spanish. 
The  Aguirre  is  a  tributary  of  the  Orinoco,  far  outside  of  the  terri- 
tory in  dispute.  Even  "the  extreme  British  claim"  has  not 
included  the  Aguirre,  and  the  residence  there  of  a  Dutch  slave 
trader  has  no  moie  significance  than  such  a  residence  in  the 
neighborhood  of  Cumana  or  Caracas.  In  fact,  the  mention  of 
Caura,  and  other  points  in  the  heart  of  Spanish  territory,  shows 
that  the  slave  traders  were  in  the  habit  of  carrying  on  this  trade 
even  in  remote  parts  of  the  Spanish  Colonies. 

The  other  statement  is  more  important.  It  is  that  "  Dutch 
families  had  been  living  at  the  mouth  of  the  Curumo,"  and  the 
authority  referred  to  is  the  letter  of  the  Prefect.    (B.  C,  IV.,  23.) 

The  statement,  if  true,  would  have  some  bearing  on  the  ques- 
tion whether  there  were  any  Dutch  settlements  in  the  Cuyuni 
basin.  The  Curumo  empties  into  the  Cuyuni.  The  mouth  of  the 
Curumo  is,  therefore,  on  the  latter  river.  If  Dutch  "  families  ' 
had  been  living  there  it  would  seem  to  imply  something  in  the 
nature  of  a  permanent  settlement,  especially  when  this  cast  was 
ingeniously  given  to  the  phrase  by  coupling  with  it  a  statement 
that  a  Dutchman  had  been  domiciled  eight  years  on  the  Aguirre. 


DUTCH   SETTLEMENT.  425 

An  examinatiou  of  the  passage  in  question,  however,  shows  that 
the  word  "•  families,"  which  gives  all  the  significance  to  this  cita- 
tion, does  not  occur  in  the  Spanish,  but  has  been  inadvertently 
introduced  into  the  English  translation.  The  Spanish  phrase  is 
"  otros  Olandeses,"  "other  Dutchmen";  that  is  all.  The  British 
translation  is  "  other  Dutch  families." 

Of  course  the  fact  that  Dutchmen  were  once  at  the  mouth  of 
the  Curumo  is  a  fact  which,  taken  by  itself,  has  no  significance. 
In  the  course  of  the  one  hundred  and  sixty-six  years,  during 
which  itinerant  tradei-s  were  roaming  through  the  forest  paths, 
buying  Indian  children,  Spanish  horses,  annatto  and  balsam,  no 
doubt  Dutchmen  were  several  times  there.  Sometimes  an  old 
negio  trader  of  the  Company  was  away  as  long  as  six  months. 
But  his  wanderings  during  this  period  did  not  make  a  settlement. 
The  Dutch  did  not  settle  in  this  region. 

That  which  gives  the  statement  its  force,  as  the  statement  is 
made  in  the  text  of  the  British  Case,  is  not  that  the  pereons  in 
Question  were  Dutchmen,  but  that  they  were  Dutch  families,  for 
which,  however,  the  text  of  the  document  cited  gives  no  warrant. 
The  passage  referi-ed  to  by  the  British  Case  as  its  authority 
xxjurs  in  a  description  given  in  1769  by  the  Prefect  of  the  Mis- 
nons  of  the  destruction  of  the  Dutch  post  at  Quive  Kuru  in  1758 
md  of  his  connection  therewith.  The  Prefect  was  in  fact  the 
jame  Fray  Benito  whose  letter  to  Don  Felix  Fererras,  the  Acting 
pommandant  at  Orinoco,  had  led  to  Bonalde's  expedition  and  the 
lestruction  of  the  post. 

In  reciting  the  events  which  took  place  eleven  years  before,  he 
tates  that  in  the  year  1758  he  had  informed  the  Commandant  at 
Juayana  of  the  post  on  the  River  Cuyuni.  He  states  also  that 
here  were  at  the  post  two  Dutch  famiUes  settled,  and  that  the 
i/ommandant  sent  a  force  to  apprehend  them.  What  gave  rise  to 
lie  statement  that  there  were  two  Dutch  families  at  the  post  was 
he  fact  that,  in  addition  to  the  Outlier,  his  Assistant  and  the 
Jompany's  slave,  a  half-breed  woman  was  also  captured. 


426  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

In  the  original  letter  of  Fray  Benito  to  the  Commandant  writ- 
ten in  1758,  which  led  to  the  attack  on  the  Dutch  post,  he  refers  to 
the  fact  that  a  party  of  Dutch  slave  traders  was  at  the  mouth  of 
the  Curumo  (B.  C.  II,  145).  It  is  to  the  same  party  that  his  letter 
of  1769  evidently  has  reference;  and  thus  the  Dutch  "families" 
referred  to  in  the  British  Case  as  living  at  the  mouth  of  the 
Curumo  turn  out  to  be  nothing  more  than  an  ordinary  party  of 
slave  traders  engaged  in  the  prosecution  of  their  business. 

It  is  presumably  upon  the  authority  of  these  facts  that  the 
British  Atlas  has  placed  what  looks  like  a  town-site  at  the  mouth 
of  the  Curumo,  designated  "Dutch  Settlement  1750,"  for  there  is 
no  other  allusion  to  such  a  settlement  in  the  evidence.  In  view 
of  the  evidence,  it  is  difficult  to  find  any  explanation  of  the  state- 
ment of  the  Atlas. 

The  British  Case  also  states  (p.  48),  that  in  1758  "  Dutch 
traders  were  resident  on  the  Tucupo  (a  branch  of  the  Curumo), 
the  Capi  (Essequibo),  and  Paraman  (Barama)." 

This  statement  is  founded  on  a  passage  in  the  same  letter  of 

Fray  Benito  to  the  Commandant  in  1758  which  led  to  the  capture 

of  the  Dutch  post.     The  letter  does  not  say,  however,  as  the  text 

of  the  British  Case  would  imply,  that  Dutch  traders  were  resident 

at  these  points.     The  letter,  as  translated  in  the  British  appendix, 

is  as  follows: 

"  We  also  know  that  numbers  of  Dutch,  besides  those  who  go  to  the 
Paragua  [a  tributary  of  the  Caroni,  entirely  outside  of  the  limits  of  the 
extreme  British  claim]  remain  in  the  places  called  Tucupo,  Capi  and  Para- 
man to  buy  slaves. " 

The  statement  in  the  British  Case  that  Dutch  traders  "were 
resident "  at  those  points,  is  founded  on  the  statement  in  the  let- 
ter that  Dutch  slave-traders  "  remained  "  at  these  points.  There 
is  no  doubt  that  they  stopped  at  these  points  and  at  many  others. 
It  evidently  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  of  settlement* 
Yet  this  is  also  placed  on  the  British  map  as  a  "  Dutch  Residence.** 

Equally  misleading  is  the  description  (also  on  p.  48)  of  the 


DUTCH   SETTLEMENT.  427 

destruction  of  the  Dutch  post  at  Quive-Kuru.     It  is  described  in 

these  terms: 

"  In  1758,  as  already  mentioned,  there  occurred  an  attack  by  the 
Spaniards  upon  the  Dutch  on  the  Cuyuni,  and  two  Dutchmen  with  their 
wives  and  a  negro  slave  were  carried  off  prisoners;  " 

and  the  marginal  reference  calls  it  "Cuyuni  Raid." 

The  ordinary  reader  in  considering  this  passage  could  hardly 
be  blamed  for  supposing  that  there  was  a  Dutch  settlement  in  the 
puyuni  which  had  been  raided  by  the  Spaniards.  Such,  as  we 
know,  is  not  the  case. 

I  What  was  attacked  by  Bonalde  was  the  post  of  1755,  con- 
taining, according  to  the  letter  of  Director- General  Storm  (B.  C. 
tl,  154),  "the  chief  of  the  Post  [Outlier],  his  second  in  command 
Bylier],  a  slave  of  the  company,  and  a  half-bred  woman  with 
ler  children."  This  was  the  "  attack  by  the  Spaniards  upon  the 
putch  on  the  Cuyuni,"  where  "  two  Dutchmen  with  their  wives 
md  a  negro  slave  were  carried  off  prisoners." 

The  British  Case  then  refers  to  the  letter  of  Fray  Benito  de- 

'ailing  the  rumors  which  he  had  heard  about  the  presence  of  the 

)utch,    and  the  statements   of  the   officers  that   the  expedition 

tarted  for  the  purpose  of  apprehending  a  Dutchman  named  Jacobs 

iving  on  the  Island  of  Curamacuru  in  the  River  Cuyuni.    "  Cura- 

nacuru  "  simply  means  "Curumo  Creek"  or  "Curumo  River," 

nd  the  persons  of  whom  the  expeditions  were  in  search  were  those 

v^hom  the  Prefect  had  heard  were  at  the  mouth  of  the  Curumo. 

'he  case  goes  on  to  state  that  the  Commander  of  the  expedition 

'  was  unable  to  find  any  such  island,  but  that  he  did  ultimately 

iscover  and  take  prisoners  two  Dutchman  living  at  a  place  called 

'uiba,"  and  it  adds  that  "  the  position  of  Cuiba  is  not  accurately 

nown,  but  it  is  believed  to  be  high  up  in  the  Cuyuni;  the  posi- 

on  of  the  Island  of  Curamacuru  is  also  not  accurately  known, 

ut  it  is  stated  on  the  authority  of  living  witnesses  that  it  is  in 

he  River  Uruan  and  in  the  vicinity  of  the  most  advanced  of  the 

panish    Missions.''    On  the  strength  of  these  statements,  two 


428  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

more  "  Dutch  Residences"  are  marked  on  the  British  map.  When 
a  difference  appears  as  to  whether  the  post  was  at  one  or  the 
other  of  two  plaees,  the  British  Atlas  concludes  that  it  was  at 
both. 

The  witnesses  now  living  who  are  referred  to  in  this  passage 
are  one  Miku,  a  Carib  Indian,  who  made  a  deposition  September 
27,  1897,  before  Mr.  McTurk,  the  zealous  upholder  of  British  inter- 
ests on  the  Cuyuni,  and  Mr.  McTurk  himself,  whose  affidavit  is 
dated  November  I,  in  the  same  year.  The  depositions  are  given 
respectively  in  B.  C.  VII,  228  and  234. 

The  statements  of  these  depositions  will  be  considered  first  in 
reference  to  Cuiba. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  Cuiba  or  Quive-Kuru,  where  the 
post  was  situated,  is  only  45  miles  or  "  15  hours  "  from  Essequibo, 
and  that  this  was  the  distance  of  the  first  post,  as  stated  by 
Storm,  in  answer  to  the  Company's  inquiry  (B.  C,  II,  180). 
Ignoring  this  evidence,  however,  the  British  Case  seeks  to 
establish  for  the  past  a  position  higher  up  the  Cuyuni,  in  order  to 
found  upon  it  a  more  extended  claim;  in  fact,  the  Atlas  (Map  1, 
Br.  Atlas),  marks  its  "probable  site"  about  at  the  mouth  of  the 
Acarabisi,  some  80  miles  above  Quive-Kuru,  and  the  Case,  at 
another  place  (p.  47)  states  as  to  the  site  of  the  post: 

**  It  is  difficult  to  fix  its  exact  situation,  but  an  examination  of  all  the 
evidence  upon  the  subject  points  to  a  position  somewhere  between  the 
.     .     .     mouth  of  the  Curumo  and  that  of  the  Acarabisi." 

It  is  largely  for  the  purpose  of  tending  to  prove  the  supposed 
advanced  position  of  the  Dutch  post  of  1755  that  the  affidavits 
referred  to  are  introduced  into  the  case. 

Miku  says  in  his  affidavit: 

"I  am  a  Carib  Indian,  and  am  at  present  living  at  Kalacoon." 

Where  Miku  was  living  "  at  present "  is  the  Government  sta- 
tion in  the  Essequibo,  on  the  point  between  that  river  and  th^ 
Massaruni,  where  Mr.   McTurk  also   resides  and   discharges    his 


DUTCH   SETTLEMENT.  429 

magisterial  and  other  duties,  among  which  is  the  appointment  of 
Indian  Captains  (B.  C.  VII,  33Y). 
Miku  goes  on  to  say: 

"  I  knew  a  place  called  Ciiiba ;  it  is  a  creek  high  up  in  the  Cuyuni,  about 
two  days'  travelling  above  the  mouth  of  the  Uruan.  The  land  is  good  to 
muke  a  place  ;  the  land  is  high  at  the  mouth  of  the  creek,  but  there  is  low 
land  behind.  I  do  not  know  any  other  place  called  Cuiba  on  the  River 
Cuyuni." 

I       Mr.  McTurk  in  his  affidavit  says: 

I  "I  am  intimately  acquainted  with  the  River  Ouyuni  as  far  u[»  as  the 
[junction  with  the  River  Uruan,  having  within  the  last  sixteen  years 
I  ascended  it  on  upwards  of  twenty  occasions.     I  am  informed  that  there  is  a 

I  place  called  Cuiba  situate  on  the  right  bank  of  the  river  beyond  Uruan,  but 

I I  have  never  actually  been   there.     I   know  a  creek  called  Querri-Kuru, 
which  flows  into  the  River  Cuyuni  on  its  left  bank;  it  is  the  same  creek  as 

'the  one  incorrectly  marked  Yanekurru  on  the  map;  the  creek  Yanekuri  is 
the  next  creek  marked  on  the  map  lower  down  than  the  Querri-Kuru,  and 
[is  on  the  map  incorrectly  called  Quive-Kuru.  There  is  no  place  of  the 
'Oame  of  Quive-Kuru,  and  I  do  not  believe  that  is  the  same  place  as  Cuiba, 
I  as  has  been  suggested.  So  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  discover,  and  I  have 
made  many  inquiries,  there  is  no  place  called  Quiba  on  the  Cuyuni,  other 
than  the  one  before  mentioned." 

Upon  these  affidavits  the  British  Case  makes  the  statement: 

"  The  positition  of  Cuiba  is  not  accurately  known,  but  it  is  believed  to 
be  high  up  in  the  Cuyuni." 

This  statement  is  somewhat  indefinite  when  speaking  of  a  river 
three  hundred  miles  in  length;  and  incidentally,  as  far  as  the  posi- 
tion of  this  post  is  concerned,  it  draws  a  misleading  conclusion 
from  the  affidavit  of  Miku.  If  Cuiba  is  situated,  as  Miku  says, 
two  days'  traveling  above  the  mouth  of  the  Uruan,  the  expedition 
of  Bonalde,  which  came  from  the  mouth  of  the  Uruan  and  sailed 
for  nine  days  down  the  river,  and  never  went  above  the  Uruan  at 
all,  could  not  have  destroyed  a  post  at  that  point. 

Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  Bonalde  went  dowa  the  Cuyuni 
from  the  Uruan  to  reach  the  Dutch  post  in  1T58,  the  British  Case, 
on  the  strength  of  Miku's  statement  that  he  knew  a  Cuiba  two 


480  ADVERSE   HOLDING. 

days'  journey  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Cuyuni,  above  the  Uruan, 
has  inferred  that  the  Posth older,  in  stating  that  his  post  was  at 
Cuiba,  meant  a  post  on  Miku's  site,  and  accordingly  has  marked 
on  the  map  at  that  point  one  of  its  numerous  town  sites,  desig- 
nated, as  usual,  "Dutch  Residence."  One  thing  is  certain,  and 
that  is  that  the  Postholder  referred  to  the  post  that  was  raided. 
If  he  used  the  name  Cuiba,  he  used  it  to  designate  that  post.  It 
cannot  by  any  possibihty  be  inferred  that  at  some  point  where  it 
was  impossible  for  the  post  to  be  situated,  which  happens  to  bear, 
according  to  Miku,  the  name  of  Cuiba,  another  post  should  have 
existed  to  which  the  Postholder  intended  to  refer. 

As  to  Mr.  McTurk's  inability  to  find  out  any  place  of  the  name 
of  Cuiba  on  the  Cuyuni,  and  to  the  variation  which  he  proposes 
in  the  name  of  the  Quive-Kuru,  the  only  answer  that  need  be 
made  is  that  in  the  Atlas  of  the  British  Case  there  are  seven  maps 
based  upon  actual  surveys  from  1840  to  1885,  all  of  them  by  high 
British  Government  officials,  in  which  the  name  of  the  stream  is 
given  as  Quive-Kuru,  while  the  alleged  name  "Querri  Kuru"  ap- 
pears for  the  first  time  in  a  British  map  in  the  Atlas  prepared  for 
this  Tribunal;  and,  secondly,  that  the  position  of  Quive-Kuru  cor- 
responds with  the  formal  and  official  statement  of  the  distance 
from  Essequibo  made  by  Director-General  Storm,  in  direct  reply 
to  an  equally  formal  and  official  inquiry  of  the  West  India  Com- 
pany, addressed  to  him  for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  action 
to  be  taken  by  the  Dutch  Government  in  its  representations  to 
Spain.  As  the  post  was  on  the  Cuyuni  15  hours,  or  45  miles  from 
Essequibo,  there  is  not  much  doubt  as  to  its  locality,  whether  the 
place  is  called  Cuiba,  Quiva,  or  Quive  Creek,  or  Quive-Kuru,  or 
Querri-Kuru.  The  fact  that  the  Postholder  said  it  was  at  Cuiba, 
is  certainly  no  warrant  for  placing  on  the  map  another  Post  called 
a  "  Dutch  Residence,"  250  miles  up  from  Essequibo. 

Second,  as  to  the  supposed  Island  of  Curamacuru.  The  ter- 
mination "cwra,"  or  ''kuru,"  seen  in  Amakuiu,  Quive-Kuru, 
Yane-kuru,  and  numerous  other  names  of  this  district,  means 


DUTCH  SETTLEMENT.  4B1 

*  creek." ''Ciiramacuru  "  means  "Curumo  Creek,"  or  "Curumo 
iiver." 

Under  these  circumstances,  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  obtain  an 
iffidavit  from  Mr.  McTurk  that  "there  is  no  island  of  that  name 
D  the  Cuyuni." 

The  fact  that  Miku,  in  September,  deposed  that  there  was  such 
in  island  in  the  Uinian,  and  that  Mr.  McTurk,  in  November, 
ieposed  that  he  was  informed  and  believed  that  such  an  island 
xisted  at  the  same  point  is  entirely  beside  the  question. 

In  fact,  as  the  locality  referred  to  in  the  rumors  mentioned  by 
he  Prefect  while  writing  at  Suay,  many  leagues  from  the  scene 
)f  operations,  was  stated  in  his  letter,  though  erroneously,  to  be 
'  the  mouth  of  the  Curumo,"  and  the  orders  of  Ferreras  to  go  to 
i/uramacuru  were  based  upon  the  Prefect's  information,  the 
)roof  of  identity  of  the  two  names  is  complete. 

The  reference  in  the  British  Case  (p.  62)  to  the  second  post  is 
iqually  misleading.     It  says: 

"In  1767  the  Cuyuni  Post  is  returned  as  existing  with  a  Postholder 
nd  two  assistants ;  but  there  appears  to  have  been  a  difficulty  in  finding 
uitable  officers  for  this  Post,  for  in  1785,  mention  is  made  of  *  the  old 
.*68t  in  Cuyuni,  which  is  at  present  still  without  a  Postholder,'  and  a  man 
f&a  proposed  for  the  place." 

It  might  reasonably  be  inferred  from  this  statement  that  the 
Juyuni  post  of  1767  was  still  in  existence  in  1785,  but  that  there 
iras  a  momentary  difficulty  in  finding  suitable  officers  for  it,  and 
hat  the  difficulty  was  overcome  by  the  selection  of  a  Postholder. 
Tie  fact,  however,  was  that  in  1^69  the  position  of  Postholder  in 
iuyuni  was  vacant  (B.  C.  VII,  16T),  and  that  the  Byliers,  Jan  van 
Vittinge  and  Gerrit  van  Leeuwen,  were  at  the  post;  that  the 
anior  Bylier,  Van  Wittinge,  in  that  year,  in  apprehension  of  a 
areatened  attack  from  the  Spaniards,  moved  the  post  down  the 
iver,  greatly  to  the  dispaproval  of  the  Dutch  Commandeur;  that 
1  1771  the  Byliers,  Van  Wittinge  and  Van  Leeuwen,  were  still 
aere  without  a  Postholder  (B.  C.  VII,  168);  that  in  that  year  Van 


432  ADVERSE   HOLDING. 

Wittinge  died  at  his  post  {Id.,  177);  that  Van  Leeuwen  at  the 
same  time  disappeared  from  the  rolls,  and  that  this  constitutes 
the  last  mention  of  an  existing  post  in  Cuyuni.  All  this  may  be 
found  in  the  very  rolls  which  are  given  in  the  Appendix  to  the 
British  Case,  and  which  are  referred  to  in  that  Case  as  evidence  of 
the  only  fact  in  reference  to  the  last  Cuyuni  post,  which  the  text 
of  the  Case  mentions. 

The  reference  to  1785,  which  seems  to  imply  that  the  post  was 
still  in  existence,  is  shown  by  the  evidence  to  be  as  follows:  in 
that  year,  the  Court  of  Policy  state  (B.  C.  V,  30-31)  that  one 
Arnoldus  Dyk  had  arrived  in  the  colony,  claiming  he  had  been 
appointed  by  the  Company  Postholder  at  Moruka,  but  that  the 
Court  had  already  appointed  an  old  employee  named  Bartholi  to 
that  place.    The  Court  then  proceed  to  say : 

"  That,  in  order  not  to  leave  this  A.  Dyk  entirely  without  employ,  the 
Court  would  suggest  to  his  Excellency's  consideration  whether  it  would  not 
be  best  to  place  this  Arnoldus  Dyk  at  the  old  Post  in  Cuyuni,  which  is  at 
present  still  without  a  Postholder." 

Dyk  never  was  appointed,  and  nothing  further  was  heard  of 
the  post. 

The  facts  in  this,  as  in  many  other  cases  commented  upon  in 
the  British  Case,  are  so  well  known  that  it  is  impossible  to  sup- 
pose that  the  British  Case  intended  to  represent  that  the  post  in 
Cuyuni  existed  later  than  1772.  The  only  reason  for  mentioning 
them  here  is  to  guard  against  the  wrong  conclusion  that  might, 
with  considerable  reason,  be  drawn  from  the  manner  of  statement 
adopted  in  the  British  Case,  especially  in  view  of  the  statement 
which  follows,  to  this  effect,  that 

"  The  re-establishment  of  the  Cuyuni  Post  was  followed  by  a  series  of 
rumours  as  to  attempts  upon  it  by  the  Spaniards,  and  though  these 
rumours  were  without  foundation,  yet  certain  other  acts  of  the  Spanish 
authorities  about  this  time  led  the  Dutch  again  to  make  a  formal  Remons- 
trance to  the  Court  of  Madrid. " 

It  might  be  supposed  that  both  this  statement  had  reference 

to  a  re-established  post,  or  a  post  whose  existence  was  still  con- 


DUTCH  SETTLEMENT.  433 

tinued  in  1Y85,  The  re-establishment  of  the  post,  however,  which 
is  spoken  of  is  the  re-establishment  in  1766,  as  to  the  attacks  upon 
which  the  Dutch  are  supposed  to  have  made  their  second  Remons- 
trance—which, however,  can  hardly  be  called  a  remonstrance — 
occurred  to  the  marginal  reference,  in  1769. 

Another  illustiation  of  the  infelicity  of  statement  of  the 
British  Case  is  to  be  found  on  page  44,  where  it  is  said,  referring 
to  rumors,  in  1754,  of  projected  attacks  of  the  Spanish: 

''At  this  time  it  must  be  noted  that  the  Spaniards  had  no  knowledge 
whatever  of  the  localities  into  which  it  was  supposed  they  were  about  to 
penetrate.  Their  only  information  appears  to  have  been  derived  from  one 
Nicolas  Collaert,  a  Dutch  deserter,  who  had  drawn  for  the  Spanish  Col- 
onel a  map  of  the  River  Cuyuni,  ostensibly  for  the  purposes  of  the  Bound- 
ary Commission  between  Spain  and  Portugal."' 

The  above  is  a  statement,  as  plain  as  words  can  make  it,  that 
the  Spaniards  were  absolutely  ignorant— "had  no  knowledge 
whatever  "—of  the  locality,  not  into  which  they  were  about  to 
penetrate,  but  into  which  it  was  supposed  they  were  about  to 
penetrate.  It  is  not  even  stated  as  a  fact  that  the  Spaniards  had 
any  idea  of  penetrating  into  the  locality,  but  only  that  the  Dutch 
supposed  that  they  were  about  to  do  so.  The  locality  was  the 
valley  of  the  River  Cuyuni. 

The  only  authority  for  this  sweeping  statement  as  to  the  igno- 
rance of  the  Spaniards,  as  appears  from  the  reference  in  the  text 
of  the  case,  is  a  statement  made  in  a  report  of  the  Director-General, 
October  12,  1764  (B.  C.  II,  08),  as  follows: 

"Moreover,  the  Emissary  had  in  Orinoco  conversed  with  oue  Nicholas 
Collaert,  who  fled  from  here  some  years  ago,  who  had  related  to  him 
that  the  Colonel  aforesaid  had  caused  him  to  be  brought  to  Orinoco,  and 
had  let  him  make  to  the  best  of  his  ability  a  drawing  of  the  course  of  the 
River  Cuyuni." 

The  statement  of  the  Director-General  simply  is  that  he  had 
^i  heard  from  one  Collaert,  a  Dutch   fugitive   in  Orinoco,   that  a 


434  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

Spanish  Colonel  *'had  let  him  make  to  the  best  of  his  abiHty  a 
drawing  of  the  course  of  the  River  Cuyuni." 

As  to  the  question  how  much  or  how  little  information  the 
Spanish  Boundary  Commission  may  have  had  besides  the  map  of 
CoUaert,  there  is  no  evidence.  The  fact  that  the  Spanish  Colonel 
had  let  Collaert  make  a  map  for  him  certainly  is  no  ground  for 
the  inference  that  the  Collaert  map  was  all  they  had;  and  the 
inference  from  the  Director- General's  letter  that  "the  Spaniards 
had  no  knowledge  whatever  of  the  Cuyuni "  is  left  entirely  desti- 
tute of  foundation. 

One  great  source  of  confusion  in  the  British  Case,  to  which 
allusion  has  already  been  made,  is  the  use  of  the  words 
"Cuyuni"  and  "Massaruni"  in  speaking  of  the  extension 
of  the  Essequibo  settlements.  Nowhere  is  it  indicated  in  the 
British  Case  that  these  settlements,  in  the  Dutch  period, 
stopped  absolutely  at  the  falls,  and  that  the  falls  in  question  are 
only  ten  or  twelve  miles  from  the  mouths  of  the  rivers.  The 
reader  of  that  Case  would  be  led  to  infer,  from  the  language 
used,  that  plantation  extended  for  an  indefinite  and  certainly  very 
considerable  distance  on  these  rivers.  The  fact  that  the  rivers 
themselves  are,  in  the  one  case  three  hundred  miles,  and  in  the 
other  two  hundred  and  fifty  miles  long,  gives  to  a  general  state- 
ment made  in  regard  to  alleged  settlements  upon  their  banks  a 
meaning  not  apparently  consistent  with  the  fact  that  these  settle- 
ments extended  only  over  a  space  of  ten  or  twelve  miles  at  their 
respective  mouths. 

Thus,  when  it  says  (p.  29)  that  there  is  evidence  "from  1681, 
onwards,  that  the  area  of  actual  plantation  extended  along  the 
rivers  Cuyuni,  Massaruni  and  Upper  Essequibo,"  it  might  reason- 
ably be  supposed  that  some  considerable  part  of  the  three  hun* 
dred  miles  of  the  course  of  the  rivers  was  meant,  or  at  least  som0 
part  greater  than  the  twelve-mile  stretch  at  their  mouths. 

The  error  is  strengthened  and  magnified  by  the  statement  ii 
mediately  following: 


DUTCH  SETTLEMENT.  435 

"  But  the  energies  of  the  Dutch  were  not  confined  to  the  area  of  actual 
plantation.  Hunting  and  fishing  were  carried  on,  and  Posts  established  in 
various  parts  of  the  territory  in  question.'' 

There  is  very  little  evidence  of  hunting  or  fishing  outside  of  the 
immediate  neighborhood  of  Essequibo  or  its  adjoining  coast, 
although  wild  hog  meat  and  fish  were  bought  in  considerable 
quantities  from  the  Indians. 

As  to  the  posts,  the  only  posts  during  the  Dutch  period  v^^ere 
the  posts  of  Demerara  and  Mahaicony,  to  the  eastward;  the  post 
of  Arinda,  high  up  on  the  Essequibo;  the  so-called  "posts  in 
Cuyuni,"  and  the  posts  at  Pomeroon  afterw^ards  moved  to  Wacupo 
and  Moruka. 

Again  on  page  32,  the  British  Case  states: 

"  Their  plantations  and  settlements  lined  the  banks  of  the  Essequibo, 
Massaruni,  and  Cuyuni  for  some  distance  from  the  junction  of  the  three 
[  rivers." 

This  statement  is  literally  true.  The  plantations  and  settle- 
j  ments  did  line  the  banks  of  the  Cuyuni  for  some  distance  from 
the  junction;  but  it  could  hardly  be  fairly  inferred  from  the  state- 
ment that  the  "  some  distance  "  referred  to  was  ten  or  twelve  miles 
in  a  river  of  300  miles.  It  may  reasonably  be  said  of  the  sugges- 
tion that  it  is  unintentionally  misleading. 

Again,  the  British  Case  states  (p.  33)  that  in  1722  the  Engineer 
Saincterre  reported  that: 

"  The  ground  was  even  better  above  in  the  Rivers  Essequibo,  Massaruni, 
and  Cuyuni  than  below,  but  that  tlie  rocks,  falls  and  islands  had,  up  to  that 
(lute,  prevented  Europeans  from  establishing  sugar  plantations  there ;  "' 

and  it  adds: 

"  In  1723-24  furtlier  plantations  of  coffee  and  cassava  were  established  in 
'uyuui." 

The  natural  inference  from  these  statements  is  that  while  the 
[rocks,  falls  and  islands  prevented  the  establishment  of  sugar  plan- 
tations, they  did  not  prevent  plantations  of  coffee  and  cassava. 
The  fact,  however,  is,  and  the  Case  might  with  accuracy  have 
said,  that  not  only  up  to  that  date,  but  to  the  very  end  of  the 


436  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

colony  the  rocks,  falls  and  islands  prevented  not  only  sugar  plan- 
tations, but  all  other  plantations  above  the  point  where  the  falls 
were  situated.  The  plantations  of  coffee  and  cassava  to  which  the 
Case  refers  were  plantations  made  in  the  short  stretch  of  the 
river,  at  the  falls  or  immediately  below. 

The  misleading  character  of  the  above  statements  is  height- 
ened by  the  statement  made  shortly  after  (p.  34): 

"  In  1730,  there  were  coffee  plantations  both  above  and  below  the  falls 
in  Ouyuni.  Experiments  were  also  made  in  the  planting  of  cocoa  and 
indigo.  There  was  a  plantation,  in  1732,  upon  Batavia,  an  island  in  the 
Cuyuni,  and,  in  1733,  the  Court  of  Policy  rejiorted  that  coffee  and  cocoa 
were  being  cultivated  to  the  utmost  extent  that  the  number  of  slaves  would 
permit." 

It  is  true  that  the  Company  had  two  plantations  at  the  lowest 
fall  of  the  Cuyuni,  one  above  and  the  other  below  that  fall,  and 
both  in  its  immediate  neighborhood.  The  Island  of  Batavia,  in 
the  Cuyuni,  was  an  island  below  the  lowest  fall  and  not  five  miles 
from  the  mouth  of  the  Massaruni.  It  may  be  true  that  the  culti- 
vation of  coffee  and  cocoa  was  the  utmost  which  the  number  of 
slaves  would  permit;  but  it  was  not  cultivation  on  either  the 
Cuyuni  or  the  Massaruni  above  the  falls. 

The  same  may  be  said  of  the  novel  kind  of  settlement  which 
was  established,  in  1738,  on  an  island  in  (he  Cuyuni;  that  is,  the 
settlement  of  the  half-free  Creoles.  This  island  was  below  the 
falls. 

It  is  stated  on  p.  63  of  the  British  Case  that  a  post  existed 
in  Massaruni.  From  this  it  might  be  inferred  tliat  the  Dutch 
established  some  sort  of  occupation  at  the  upper  part  of  the 
river.  The  post,  however,  was  situated  at  the  very  mouth  of 
the  Massaruni,  on  the  point  where  it  empties  into  the  Esse- 
quibo,  being  the  present  site  of  the  British  penal  settlement 
(B.  C.  VI,  109-111). 

Again  it  is  stated  (p.  36): 

"Land,  however,  continued  to  be  taken  up  there.  In  1745  a  grant  waa 
made  in  Cuyuni  and  another  applied  for  in  Massaruni,  and  in  1754  and  1757 


[ 


I 


DUTCH   SETTLEMENT.  437 

i,a-auts  were  made  in  Alassarimi.  la  1756  a  colonist  of  the  name  of  Coii- 
vreur  is  mentioned  as  living  on  his  plantation  obviously  some  way  up  the 
Massauriini.  There  was  a  transfer  of  land  in  Massaruni  in  1759,  and  in 
-Massarnni  and  Cnyuni  in  1701.  There  was  also  a  new  grant  in  Cnyuni  in 
1761." 

All  the  above  grants  were  either  at  or  below  the  falls. 
It  is  stated  in  the  British  Case  (p.  50): 

"  About  this  time  (1770)  plantation  was  rapidly  extending  to  the  west  of 
Essequibo." 

This  statement  cannot  mean,  though  it  would  seem  to  state, 
that  plantation  was  extending  in  the  interior.  It  only  refers  to 
the  west  hank  of  the  Essequibo.  There  is  no  evidence  to  show 
extension  in  other  directions. 

It  should  be  added  that  the  ambiguity  shown  by  the  expres- 
sions in  the  British  Case  in  reference  to  plantation  on  the  Cuyuni 
and  Massaruni  during  the  Dutch  period  is  avoided  in  the  state- 
ment made  on  page  65,  in  reference  to  the  condition  of  the 
country  in  1831,  during  the  British  period.     Of  this  the  Case  says: 

"Upon  the  Essequibo,  the  Massaruni,  and  the  Cuyuni,  plantation  was 
not  extended  at  this  period,  the  soil  above  the  estuary  not  being  sufficiently 
fertile.  But  in  1831  the  country  was  described  as  settled  to  the  falls  of  the 
three  branches  of  the  Essequibo,  namely,  the  Essequibo,  Massaruni  and 
Cuyuni." 

The  fact  is  that  the  citation  given  is  an  accurate  statement  as 
to  the  limits  of  settlement  on  the  Cuynni  and  Massaruni,  not  only 
in  1831,  but  during  the  entire  period  of  the  Dutch  colony. 

(4.)  Coast  Territory. 

The  question  of  settlement  in  the  coast  territory,  otherwise 
known  as  the  Barima — Waini  district,  is  narrowed  down  to  a 
discussion  of  three  occurrences:  The  establishment  of  Beek- 
man's  "shelter"  in  1683;  the  Rosen  incident  in  1766,  and  the 
La  Riviere  incident  in  1768.  During  the  whole  of  the  Dutch 
period  of  over  a  century  and  a  half  there  is  nothing  else  in  the 
coast  territory  to  be  considered  in  reference  to  settlement,    Tb^r© 


438  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

is  no  other  evidence  of  settlement  than  that  which  is  contained  in 
these  three  episodes. 

The  attempt  has  been  made  to  supply  the  entire  want  of  evi- 
dence on  this  head  in  the  archives  by  a  mass  of  so-called  evidence 
consisting  of  depositions  made  since  the  Treaty  of  Arbitration  was 
concluded  in  reference  to  "traces"  of  earlier  settlements  and  to 
Indian  "traditions.*'  The  weight  to  be  attached  to  such  evidence, 
made  at  least  a  century  after  the  facts  to  which  it  relates,  is  very 
slight,  especially  that  as  to  Indian  traditions,  which  cannot  be 
dignified  by  the  name  of  evidence  at  all.  As  to  the  traces  of  pre- 
vious settlement,  these  may  be  referred  partly  to  the  three 
incidents  which  we  are  about  to  consider,  and  partly  to  the  fact, 
which  is  v^^ell  established,  of  the  presence  in  the  territory  during 
the  earlier  period  of  others  besides  the  Dutch.  If  traces  of  culti- 
vation belonging  to  a  remote  period  are  to  be  found  at  any  par- 
ticular spot  in  this  territory,  they  cannot  be  assumed  to  be 
evidences  of  Dutch  settlement  if  others  than  Dutchmen  are 
known  to  have  been  there.  Such  being  the  case,  our  investigation 
would  properly  begin  with  the  early  relations  maintained  by  the 
Spaniards  and  the  French  with  this  district. 

The  territory  which  is  under  consideration  is  the  territory  north 
of  the  Imataka  Ridge  and  east  of  the  Schomburgk  line,  extending 
as  far  as  the  coast  on  the  north  and  the  Moruka  on  the  east. 

Part  of  this  district,  about  the  upper  Barimaand  within  the  Brit- 
ish claim,  is  by  Schomburgk's  winding  line,  almost  enclosed  in  Vene- 
zuelan territory.  It  adjoins  the  Savanna  region  of  the  Spanish 
settlements,  the  headwaters  of  the  Barima  being  within  less  than 
ten  miles  of  those  of  the  tributaries  of  the  Curunio.  There  appear 
to  have  been  trails  which  afforded  passage  to  the  Indians  from  the 
Spanish  settlements  to  and  from  the  upper  Barima  region,  but 
there  is  no  suggestion  that  the  region  ever  contained  a  settlement 
by  the  Dutch.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Dutch  records  that  even 
points  to  trade,  to  hunting,  to  transit,  or  to  anything  else  in  the 
upper  course  of  the  Barima  and  Waini. 


DUTCH   SETTLEMENT.  439 

The  coast  territory,  which  includes  the  region  watered  by  the 
Waini,  Barima,  and  Amacura,  and  through  which  the  two  former 
rivers  run  in  a  course  parallel  to  the  coast  line,  forming  part  of  the 
series  of  inland  waterways  so  much  referred  to,  is  one  of 
the  most  vital  points  of  discussion  in  the  pi-esent  contro- 
versy, and  upon  no  part  of  its  case  does  the  British  Govern- 
ment lay  greater  stress.  The  obvious  reason  for  this  is  the 
fact  that  the  Barima  and  Amacura  empty  into  the  Orinoco  and  form 
a  part  of  its  river  system.  Barima  Point,  at  the  western  extremity 
of  this  territory,  is  a  marked  headland,  having  an  important  bear- 
ing, as  the  merest  inspection  of  the  map  will  show,  on  the  control 
of  the  lower  Orinoco,  and  in  particular  on  its  great  ship  channel 
or  Boca  de  Navios,   which  enters  the  sea  at  this  point. 

An  additoual  importance  has  been  given  during  a  very  recent 
l)eriod  to  the  Barima- Waini  region.  Within  the  last  fifteen  years 
discoveries  of  extensive  gold  deposits  have  been  made  in  the  Ba- 
rama  and  of  the  Barima.  The  discovery  of  these  mines,  which 
have  been  extensively  worked,  lends  peculiar  importance  to  the 
question  of  disputed  possession  in  this  district. 

Before  taking  up  the  question  of  settlement  in  the  coast  ter- 
ritory, it  is  necessary  to  give  a  brief  outline  of  the  trade  conditions 
prevailing  there  in  the  Spanish-Dutch  period,  chiefly  for  the  pur- 
pose of  showing  by  whom  it  was  most  frequented,  and  who  prob- 
ably settled  there,  in  case  it  should  appear  that  remnants  of  other- 
wise untraceable  settlements  are  to  be  found. 

The  Spanish  were  familiar  with  the  Barima  at  a  very  early 
period.  The  expeditions  of  Ordaz  and  Acosta  in  1530  and  of 
the  Lieutenant  of  Ordaz,  Herrera,  in  153Y,  entered  the  Orinoco 
for  purposes  of  exploration  and  penetrated  the  country,  some  of 
them  to  a  high  point  on  the  river,  made  the  Spaniards  famihar 
from  a  very  early  period  with  the  territory  about  its  mouth.  At 
a  later  period,  when  Berrio  became  Governor  of  Guayana,  in  1586, 
the  numerous  voyages  made  between  Trinidad  and  Santo  Thome 
necessarily  imply  an  intimg,te   knowledge  of  the   mouth  of  the 


440  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

Orinoco;  while  the  fiequent  practice  of  goiug  eastward  to  Esse- 
quibo  and  other  points  for  the  purpose  of  getting  food,  shows  that 
the  navigation  of  the  intermediate  district  must  have  been 
famihar. 

These  movements  of  the  Spanish  about  the  coast  may  be 
briefiy  referred  to.  Thus,  De  Laet,  in  his  description  of  the  West 
Indies,  pubhshed  in  1625,  says  (V  C,  p.  42): 

"  The  Spaniards  had  there  [that  is,  in  the  Esseqiiibo]  some  people  in? 
the  year  1591." 

In  1590,  Keymis,  while  asserting  that  "  further  to  the  east- 
ward than  Dessekebe  [Essequibo]  no  Spaniard  ever  tmvelled,"  re- 
ports: 

"•  In  this  river,  which  wot'  now  ciill  Di'voriti;i.  the  Spmiiartls  doc  intfiul 
to  build  them  a  towne." 

Again,  Masham,  who  accompanied  Captain  Leonard  Berrie, 
the  Commander  of  Raleigh's  expedition  in  1597,  says  (V.  C.  p. 
42)  that  he  learned  from  an  Indian  that  in  the  Essequibo  "there 
were  some  300  Spaniards,  which  for  the  most  part  now  are  de- 
stroyed and  dead,"  and  he  adds: 

"  It  was  reported  that  the  Spaninrdes  were  guiine  out  of  Dosekebe, 
wliieh  was  not  so.  .  .  .  Tht'  next  night  weo  had  newes  brought 
.  .  .  that  there  were  tenne  oanoas  of  Spaniardes  in  the  mouth  of  Cor- 
itine  .  .  .  wlio  went  along  the  coast  to  buy  broad  and  other  victuals 
for  them  in  Orenoque  [Orinoco],  Marowgo.  [Moruka]  and  Desekobo 
[Essequibo]." 

The  constant  movement  and  transit  of  Spaniards  between  the 
Orinoco  and  points  to  the  eastward,  referred  to  by  so  many  au- 
thorities, implies  of  necessity  a  knowledge  of  the  district  which 
was  afterwards  generally  known  as  Barima.  The  strong  equa- 
torial ocean  current,  sweeping  to  the  westward  along  the  coast  of 
Guiana,  its  strength  reinforced  by  trade-winds,  made  an  easterly 
journey  by  sea  a  peculiarly  difficult  matter.  To  avoid  it,  the 
natives  used  the  deep  and  landlocked  waters  of  the  Barima  and 
the  Wajni,  where  they  could  take  advantage  both  of  tide  and 


DUTCH  SETTLEMENT.  441 

liver-current.  To  suppose  that  the  Spaniards,  depending  upon 
this  coast  and  its  rivers  for  the  very  necessaries  of  existence,  and 
visiting  it  frequently  to  obtain  them,  did  not  know  of  the  interior 
passages,  is  to  suppose  that  they  were  destitute  of  the  most  ordi- 
nary faculties. 

When  Domingo  de  Vera  y  Ybarguen,  Maestro  de  Campo  of 
(rovernor  Antonio  de  Berrio,  returned  from  Spain  in  3595,  he  pro- 
ceeded to  Trinidad.  He  states,  however  (B.  C.  I,  15),  that  on  his 
way  to  Trinidad, 

''  Before  reaching  the  principal  port,  T  huuled  at  some  friendly  Indian 
villages,  some  10  leagues  from  the  port,  and  8])oke  to  the  natives,  wlio 
entertained  mo  well.  I  left  with  them  6ti  men,  as  well  as  a  man  with  a 
good  knowledge  of  the  country,  whom  I  brought  from  Spain  with  goods 
for  barter,  to  go  to  the  place  wliere  the  Governor,  Don  Antonio  de  Verrio, 
was,  and  tell  the  natives  of  the  country  of  my  arrival,  and  to  bring  me 
boats  to  take  all  my  people  across  to  El  Dorado." 

As  Antonio  de  Berrio  was  at  this  time  at  Santo  Thome,  the 
place  where  Vera  left  his  party  must  have  been  near  the  mouth 
of  the  Barima,  from  which  point  they  were  to  make  their  way 
upwards. 

Not  only  this,  but  Vera  himself  went  to  the  Essequibo  two 
years  later.  In  the  same  letter,  containing  his  report  to  the  King, 
of  the  expedition  which  had  come  out  under  his  command,  he 
says,  speaking  of  the  year  1597,  that  he  "  then  went  to  the  River 
Essequibo"  (B.  C,  I,  17). 

In  1013  occurred  the  celebrated  expedition  to  the  Corentin, 
(  which  destroyed  the  Dutch  settlement  on  that  river.  The  expedi- 
tion was  commanded  by  Muxica,  the  Lieutenant  of  Guayana, 
under  the  Governor-General,  Don  Juan  Tostado,  at  that  time 
Lieut. -General  of  Trinidad  fitted  out  a  force  under  Captain  Cortes, 
**  that  they  might  go  on  his  Majesty's  service  to  the  assistance  of 
the  Lieuten.'int  of  Guayana,  in  whose  district  certain  Dutch 
Lutherans,  rebels  against  the  Royal  Crown  were  settled,  and  make 
war  upon  them  and  dislodge  them."    The  detailed  report  of  this 


442  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

expedition,  dated  February  16,  1614,  is  given  in  B.  C.  I,  31. 
Cortes,  with  the  Trinidad  detachment,  was  met  by  Muxica,  with 
the  Guayaua  detachment  from  Santo  Thome,  at  the  mouth  of  the 
river  Vauruma  (Pomeroon)  (B.  C  I,  32),  a  point  which  he  was 
most  likely  to  reach  by  passing  through  Barima. 

In  1608  Unton  Fither,  an  Englishman  whom  Harcourt  had 
left  on  the  Marowin,  reports  (V.  C,  p.  43)  that  the  Spaniards 
have  "  cleare  left  Dissikeebe,  and  not  a  Spaniard  there,"  showing 
that  the  fact  of  their  having  been  there  was  well  known;  and 
from  the  remarkable  testimony  contained  in  the  letter  of  the  Duke 
of  Lerma,  of  February  2,  1615  (V.  C.  II,  263-4),  enclosing  a  report 
of  the  Royal  agent  in  the  Netherlands,  it  appears  that  there  were 
at  Essequibo  ''some  persons,  from  twelve  to  fifteen  Spaniards, 
who  there  till  the  soil  to  raise  the  root  of  Casavia,  from  which 
bread  is  made  for  the  Governor  of  Trinidad  and  Orinoco,  Don 
Fernando  de  Borrea." 

The  above  citations  show  all  that  is  attempted  to  be  shown, 
namely,  that  the  Spaniards  must  have  been  familiar  with  the 
coast  region  between  the  Orinoco  and  Essequibo,  and  were  ac- 
customed to  use  the  inland  water-communication  to  the  Pomeroon 
through  the  Waini  and  the  Barima,  at  a  very  early  period. 

We  have,  however,  still  more  exact  testimony  from  Raleigh 
himself,  who,  writing  in  1595  (Raleigh,  Discoverieof  Guiana,  Lond. 
1596,  pp.  33-35),  says: 

''Among  manie  other  trades  those  Spaniards  used  in  Canoas  to  passe 
to  the  rivers  of  Barema,  Pawroma  and  Dissiquebe,  which  are  on  the  south 
side  of  the  mouth  of  Orenoque,  and  there  buie  women  and  children  from 
the  Canihals,  which  are  of  that  barbarous  nature,  as  they  will  for  3  or  4 
hatchets  sell  the  sonnes  and  daughters  of  their  owne  brethren  and  sisters, 
and  for  somewhat  more  even  their  own  daughters:  heerof  the  Spaniards 
make  great  profit,  for  buying  a  maid  of  12  or  13  yeares  for  three  or  fowcr 
hatchets,  they  sell  them  againe  at  Marguerita  in  the  west  Indies  for  50  and 
100  pesoes  which  is  so  many  crownes. 

"The  master  of  my  ship  Jo.  Douglas  tooke  one  of  the  Canoas  whi(  h 
came  loden  from  thence  with  people  to  be  sold.     .     .     .     They  also  trado 


DUTCH   SETTLEMENT.  443 

ill  those  rivers  for  bread  of  Cassavi,  of  which  they  buy  an  hundred  pound 
weight  for  a  kuife,  and  sell  it  at  Marguerita  for  ten  pesoes.  They  also 
recover  [get]  great  store  of  cotten,  brasill  wood,  and  those  beds  which 
they  call  Hamacas  or  brasill  beds,  Avherein  in  hot  countries  all  the  Span- 
iards use  to  lie  commonlie,  and  in  no  other,  neither  did  we  ourselves  while 
we  were  there." 

No  less  important  and  equally  precise  is  the  testimony  of  Key- 
mis,  Raleigh's  capable  and  devoted  follower,  to  the  presence  of 
the  Spaniards  in  this  district.  Keymis  relates  how  he  found  the 
Spaniards  settled,  with  their  forts,  in  the  Orinoco.  In  his  ''Re- 
lation,''^ Keymis  says  ("Relation,"  Sig.  C,  2): 

"  Now  the  Indians  of  Moruga  being  chased  from  their  dwellings,  do 
seeke  by  all  means  possible,  to  accorde  all  the  Nations  in  one,  so  to  invade 
the  Arivaccas,  who  were  guides  to  the  Spaniards,  in  showing  their  townes, 
and  betraying  them." 

The  above  citation  is  extremely  significant.  It  shows  that  the 
Spaniards  were  from  the  earliest  period,  as  they  were  later,  in 
more  modern  times,  the  friends  of  the  Arawaks. 

With  the  assistance  of  the  Arawaks,  the  Spaniards  had  in- 
vaded the  coast  territory  to  the  very  eastern  extremity  of  it  in  the 
neighborhood  of  Moruka  Creek,  and  had  conquered  and  driven 
away  the  Indians  of  that  neighborhood  "  from  their  dwellings," — 
doubtless  the  Caribs,  who  naturally  resented  the  intrusion  and  be- 
came thereafter  the  sworn  foes  of  Spain,  seeking  to  bring  about 
an  alliance  of  all  the  tribes  to  punish  the  Arawaks  for  their  serv- 
ices to  the  European  invaders. 

These  events,  recorded  on  the  spot  by  a  most  intelligent  Eng- 
lish observer,  took  place  at  a  time  when  no  Dutchman  had  ever 
set  foot  in  Guiana.  They  indicate  the  original  control  of  the 
natives  to  the  very  creek  of  Moruka  by  the  Spaniards. 

In  consequence  of  these  events  the  Coast  Indians  became  hos- 
tile, not  only  to  the  Arawaks,  but  to  the  Spaniards.     Thus,  Wareo, 

*  "  A  Relation  of  the  second  Voyage  to  GutaDa.      Perfourmed  and  written  in  the  yeare 
IftO'^.     By  Lawrence  Komys,  Gent.     Imprinted  at  London  by  Thomas  Dawson 
1696." 


444  ADVERSE   HOLDING. 

an  Indian  chief  (whose  name  strongly  suggests  the  Warows)  from 
the  region  of  the  river  Moruka,  said  to  Keymis  (''  Relation,"  Sig. 

B,  3): 

"  The  nations  furre  and  ncere  were  all  agreed  to  joyne  with  us  (Eng- 
lish) and  by  all  meanes  possible  to  assist  us  in  expelling  and  rooting  out 
the  Spaniards  from  all  parts  of  the  land." 

But  the  Spaniards  not  only  conquered  Barima  and  Moruka. 
They  utilized  their  conquests  for  purposes  of  trade.  In  this 
Keymis's  narrative  confirms  Raleigh.     He  says  ("  Relation,"  Sig. 

C.  3): 

"  .  .  .  our  intelligencer  returned  &  informed  us  that  ten  Spaniards 
were  lately  gone  with  much  trade  to  Barima,  wher  these  Indians  dwelt, 
to  buy  Cassava  bread,  and  that  within  one  day  two  other  Canoas  of  Span- 
iards were  appointed  to  come  by  the  river  Amana  to  Carapann  his  porte." 

Coming  down  to  the  period  following  the  cession  to  the  Dutch, 
in  1648,  we  find  that  during  the  second  half  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  the  French  as  well  as  the  Spanish,  were  actively  engaged 
in  trading  with  the  Indians  in  Barima.  In  1683  this  trade  was 
made  the  subject  of  querulous  comment  by  the  Commandeur  at 
Essequibo,  Abraham  Beekman,  in  his  reports  to  the  Company. 
In  his  letter  of  January  8,  1683  (V.  C.  II,  44),  he  says  of  the  In- 
dians: 

"  For  these  people,  like  irrational  animals,  listen  to  no  argument.  In- 
ducements of  every  kind — good  offices,  wares — have  no  effect  upon  them. 
They  meet  you  with  the  tart  answer  that  they  can  get  plenty  of  these  by 
trade  in  Barima  and  other  places,  which  partly  squares  with  the  truth, 
on  account  of  the  trade  ^ohich  the  French  from  the  islands  carry  on  there." 

In  1685  he  again  refers  to  the  activity  of  the  French  in  Barima: 

"  The  French  in  the  Barima  likewise  come  even  to  the  Upper  Cuyuni  *' 
(V.  C.  II,  53). 

In  1686  he  states,  speaking  of  the  country  back  of  the  Barima: 
"  The  French  sconr  the  country  up  there  and  buy  up  everything  "  (V. 
C,  II,  59). 


DUTCH  SETTLEMENT.  445 

Three  years  later,  the  French,  as  already  related,  aided  by  the 
Oaribs  of  Barima,  attacked  the  second  Dutch  colony  on  the  Pom- 
erooQ,  making  their  way  in  canoes  from  Barima  and  Waini  to 
the  Moruka,  and  utterly  destroyed  the  colony,  and  then,  returning 
to  the  Barima,  fortified  themselves  in  that  river  (V.  C.  II,  59-62). 

In  1689  Beekman  wrote  (V.  C.  II,  59):  "  The  French  are  daily 
sojourning  in  Barima  with  theCaribs";  and  in  a  letter  of  the 
same  year  he  said  (V.  C.  II,  62):  ''The  French  are  making  a 
strong-house  in  Barima." 

In  1695  he  wrote: 

"  We  have  been  kept  here  iu  continuous  alarm,  since  at  various  times 
we  have  had  tidings  that  some  French,  aided  by  Caribs  from  Barima,  are 
staying  in  the  mouth  of  the  River  Pomeroon,  who  say  that  they  will  come 
here  to  visit  us"  (V.  C.  II,  G4). 

This  fort  or  stronghold  of  the  French  in  Barima  is  a  fact 
of  great  importance  in  the  case.  Its  position  is  not  known, 
but  the  fact  is  known  from  these  two  allusions.  The  alleged 
remains  of  a  fort  in  Barima  have  been  referred  to  and  commented 
on  upon  many  occasions,  and  an  assumption,  totally  unwarranted, 
has  been  made,  especially  Schomburgk,  that  the  fort  indicated  by 
the  remains  was  a  Dutch  fort.  There  is  no  evidence  in  the  history 
of  the  Dutch  colony  that  the  Dutch  ever  had  a  fort  in  Barima. 
It  is  impossible  that  a  Dutch  fort  should  have  existed  at  any  time 
after  1648  and  not  have  been  mentioned.  It  is  impossible  that, 
had  it  existed,  it  should  not  have  been  mentioned  many  times. 
No  doubt  the  Dutch  landed  on  the  lower  Orinoco  in  1637  and  1638, 
when  they  made  their  attacks  on  Santo  Thome  and  Trinidad  dur- 
ing the  Thirty  Years'  War,  and  it  is  possible  that  during  that  cam- 
paign they  put  up  a  temporary  work;  but  if  there  was  any  such 
work,  it  was  a  mere  incident  of  a  military  campaign.  Any  re- 
mains that  may  have  been  found  in  modern  times  are  doubtless 
the  remains  of  the  old  French  fort  of  1689.  If  referable  in  any 
way  to  the  Dutch,  they  must  have  been  connected  with  the  cam- 


44G  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

paign  of  1637,  which  lasted  from  July  to  September,  and  then 
came  entirely  to  an  end. 

Besides  the  French,  from  the  islands,  traders  from  Surinam  and 
other  Dutch  settlements  not  under  the  direction  of  the  West  India 
Company  also  visited  the  Barima  and  traded  there.  Of  one  of 
them,  Biscop,  the  commandeur,  reports,  in  1683,  that  the  Barima 
''has  been  navigated  as  many  as  two  or  three  times  by  Gabriel 
Biscop  and  exploited  with  great  success,  much  to  the  prejudice  of 
the  Company  "  (V.  C.  II,  45). 

But  however  extensive  the  connection  in  the  sixteenth  century 
of  the  French  and  Surinam  rovers  was  with  trade  in  Barima,  the 
principal  trade  there  was  that  conducted  by  Spaniards  from  the 
Orinoco  during  the  whole  period.  This  was  a  continuation  of  that 
current  of  traffic  to  which  Raleigh  and  Keymis  had  called  special 
attention  in  the  earlier  period,  before  the  Dutch  were  even  heard 
of  in  Guayana.  The  trade  relations  between  the  two  colonies 
were  first  started  by  the  Dutch  in  1673,  when  the  Commandeur  of 
Essequibo  ''sent  some  wares  to  Orinoco  for  the  purpose  of  trade" 
(V.  C.  II,  36).  From  this  date  the  subject  of  trade  with  the 
Orinoco  is  mentioned  so  frequently  and  so  constantly  that  it  is 
unnecessary  to  point  to  any  particular  communication.  It  be- 
came one  of  the  features  of  the  life  of  the  colony,  and  remained 
so  during  the  next  century,  except  for  short  times  when  it  was 
interrupted  either  by  war  or  by  the  enforcement  of  narrow  com- 
mercial regulations  on  one  side  or  the  other.  It  was  first  really 
started  about  1670  (V.  C.  II,  38),  and  being  prohibited  by  Spanish 
law,  it  was  carried  on  only  by  the  connivance  of  the  Governor  of 
Guayana.  Such  were  the  inconveniences  of  the  trade  when  car- 
ried on  in  the  Orinoco,  by  reason  of  its  contraband  character,  and 
such  were  the  losses  and  penalties  it  involved,  that  the  Company 
at  one  time  put  a  stop  to  it,  being  of  the  opinion  that  "  the  Com-  | 
pany  bears  all  the  expenses  and  burdens,  and  that  others  help 
themselves  to  the  profits "  (V.  C.  II,  50).  The  field  was  so  j 
tempting,  however,  that   the   trade  was  revived,  but  the  effort 


DUTCH  SETTLEMENT.  447 

was  made  to  have  ifc  carried  on  by  the  Spaniards  at  Essequibo, 
rather  than  by  the  Dutch  at  Orinoco,  so  that  the  actual 
traffic  might  be  done  at  the  former  point.  The  Barima  was 
still  the  only  route  by  which  the  traffic  was  carried  on.  As 
time  went  on,  the  Dutch  withdrew  more  and  more  from  the 
intercolonial  trade,  leaving  it  more  and  more  in  the  hands  of  the 
Spaniards,  and  finally,  in  1761,  the  West  India  Company  con- 
cluded that  it  was  ''more  profitable  for  the  Company,  to  direct 

:  this  trade  into  such  channels  that  it  must  be  carried  on  from 

i 

'  Orinoco  to  Essequibo,  by  the  Spaniards"  (V.  C.   II,  146).     The 

trade  still  continued  active,  but  was  thereafter  entirely  carried  on 
,  by  the  Spaniards.  The  post  of  Pomeroon  or  Moruka  became  the 
f  port  of  entry  for  all  this  trade  to  the  Essequibo.  It  was  the  fron- 
tier of  the  Dutch  colony  on  this  side,  and  as  the  Spanish  trade 
grew  and  duties  were  imposed,  it  became  the  custom  house  of  the 
Dutch  colony,  which  necessarily  would  be  established  on  the 
frontier. 

It,  therefore,  appears  that,  as  far  as  trade  conditions  were  con- 
cerned, the  Spaniards  had  been  in  the  Barima  from  a  time  long 
prior  to  the  advent  of  the  Dutch  in  that  neighborhood;  that  they 
carried  on  trade  there  continuously  to  the  end  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  and  that  the  intercolonial  trade  was  chiefly  carried  on  by 
the  Spaniards  through  the  Barima  district,  the  Dutch  authorities 
themselves  favoring  this  policy. 

It  also  appears  that  early  in  this  period  and  for  a  considerable 
series  of  years,  the  French  were  active  traders  in  the  Barima  and 
in  more  or  less  constant  occupation  of  points  in  the  district,  at 
one  of  which  they  built  a  fort. 
j  Finally,  it  appears  that  the  Surinam  traders,  who  were  inde- 
pendent of  the  Dutch  West  India  Company  and  its  competitors  in 
trade,  diverted  to  themselves  a  large  part  of  the  Barima  traffic 
which  otherwise  would  have  fallen  to  the  Essequibo  colonists. 
Having  said  so  much  in  reference  to  the  general  trade  conditions 


448  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

of  the  Barima,  the  question  is  to  what,  if  any,  extent  actual  set- 
tlements of  the  Dutch  existed  in  that  region. 

The  first  matter  to  be  considered  is  the  significance,  or  rather 
the  insignificance,  of  Beekman'  rest-house  of  1683. 

The  first  reference  to  this  subject  is  in  a  report  of  the  Com- 
mandeur  of  Essequibo,  December  25,  1683  (B.  0.  I,  185),  in  which 
he  said: 

"  I  have  caused  one  of  the  Company's  servants  to  reside  in  Barima,  as 
much  annatto  and  letter-wood  is  obtainable  there,  and  it  lies  near  to  Pom- 
aroon." 

He  added: 

"I  wish  your  Honours  would  take  possession  of  that  river  as  well" 
(meaning  the  Barima),  "which  has  been  done  by  me  provisionally,  in  order 
to  see  what  revenue  it  will  yield,  since  1  am  of  opinion  that  the  Honourable 
Company  has  the  right  to  trade  and  traffic  there  in  an  open  river  as  much 
as  other  private  persons." 

In  March,  1684,  he  stated  (B.  C.  I,  186): 

"Pomeroon  begins  annually  to  deliver  much  and  good  annatto,  and 
much  was  supplied  from  Barima,  as  appears  from  the  inclosed  list.  From 
this  their  Honours  will  see  how  much  has  been  procured  and  brought  to 
the  fort  by  all  the  Postholders.'' 

The  Gommandeur  added  that  Biscop  and  other  interlopers  spoil 

the  trade;  that  they  overrun  the  land  right  up   to  the  Cuyuni; 

that 

"  In  order  somewhat  to  check  tliis,  I  have  caused  a  snudl  station  to  be 
made  at  Barima,  and  Abraham  Baudaart,  who  is  there  '*  [in  Pomeroon] 
"as  Postholder  in  place  of  Daniel  Galle,  who  is  going  home,  shall  occa- 
sionally visit  those  places  and  encourage  the  Caribs  to  trade  in  annatto 
and  letter- wood,  which  the  French  even  from  the  islands  in  the  river  fre- 
quently come  with  their  vessels  to  fetch.  I  submit,  therefore,  under  cor- 
rection, that  it  would  not  be  inequitable  for  the  Honourable  West  India 
Company  to  take  possession  of  the  River  Barima  in  order  to  acquire  the 
trade  aforesaid,  and  to  command  the  erection  there  of  a  permanent  place 
for  a  Postholder  "  (B.  C.  I,  186). 

It  might  seem  from  the  context  that  Baudaart  was  at  Barima 
as  Postholder;  but  this  is  not  the  fact.     He  was  the  Postholder  of 


DUTCH   SETTLEMENT.  449 

Pomeroon,  as  is  showu  in  the  letter  of  August  18,  1684  (B.  C.  I, 
187),  where  he  is  spokeu  of  as  "  Abraham  Baudaart,  Postholder 
in  Pomaroon."  The  British  Case  (page  31,  Hne  3)  recognizes  the 
correctness  of  this  interpretation. 

The  two  letters  above  mentioned  of  Commandeur  Beekman 
have  been  cited  occasionally  as  showing  at  this  early  period  some- 
thing in  the  nature  of  settlement  or  control  of  the  Pomeroon. 
;  Their  bearing  upon  the  question  of  control  will  be  considered  later. 
!  Here  the  only  question  is  of  actual  settlement.     In  the  first  letter 
I  he  says  that  he  has  caused  one  of  the  Company's  servants  to 
reside  in  Barima,  and  speaks  of  it  as  being  close  by  Pomeroon; 
that  is,  in  December,  1683;  and  in  the  following  March  he  com- 
plains of  the  Surinam  traders,  and  says  that,  in  order  to  check 
this,  he  has  caused  a  small  station  to  be  made  at  Barima,  and  that 
Baudaart,  the  Postholder,   "shall  occasionally  visit  those  places 
and  encourage  the  Caribs  to  trade."     He  also  speaks  of  this  in 
connection  with  a  larger  plan,  which  he  recommends  to  the  Com- 

I  pany,  to  take  over  the  Barima,  and  to  which  he  refers  in  both 
letters. 

Beek man's  suggestion  as  to  taking  possession  of  the  river, 
reiterated  in  the  second  letter,  shows  that  up  to  then  no  posses- 
sion had  been  taken.     The  two  letters  together  also  show  that 

I  the  Company's  servant  whom  he  had  caused  in  December,  1683, 

j  to  reside  in  Barima,  which  was  stated  by  him  to  be  a  provisional 
taking  possession,  subject  of  course  to  the  Company's  approval, 

1  did  not  continue  his  residence.  What  it  amounted  to  or  what 
replaced  it  is  explained  in  the  following  letter,  namely,  that  a  rest- 
hut  or  shelter  had  been  put  up  in  the  district,  and  that  the  Outlier 

;  in  Pomeroon  was  to  go  there  occasionally  to  encourage  the  Caribs 
to  trade. 

Beekman's  two  letters  were  answered  by  the  Company  on 
August  24,  1684  (V.  C.  II,  48).     The  answer  was  an  angry  and  re- 

iproachful  disapproval  of  nearly  every  proposition  which  Beekman 

[ihad  made  to  them,  and  was  full  of  caustic  comments  upon  his 


460  ADVERSE   HOLDING. 

management  of  the  colony.  His  large  scheme  about  the  Barima 
the  Company  treated  with  silent  contempt,  and  it  only  informed 
him  that  the  trade  with  the  Orinoco  must  be  stopped,  intimating 
that  the  corrupt  way  in  which  it  had  been  managed  had  deprived 
the  Company  of  the  profits  to  which  it  w^as  entitled. 

The  Company,  which  was  always  much  more  cautious  than 
the  Commandeur  about  making  claims  to  that  to  which  it  was 
not  entitled,  doubtless  had  in  mind  the  fact  that  the  charter  of 
1674,  the  third  which  had  been  given  by  the  Dutch  Government 
to  a  West  India  Company,  specified  as  the  only  places  in  America 
under  the  control  of  the  Company  Essequibo  and  Pomeroon,  and 
that  consequently  it  had  no  right  to  the  Barima,  and  that  if  the 
Barima  was  taken  into  possession  by  the  Dutch  it  would  still  not 
be  acquired  by  the  Company.  Its  extreme  dissatisfaction  with 
the  management  of  the  Orinoco  trade,  one  of  the  principal  uses  to 
which  Beekman  had  put  the  Barima,  was  also  so  great  that  it  was 
in  no  mood  to  prosecute  any  schemes  of  territorial  acquisition  in 
that  direction.  For  the  next  twenty-eight  years  nothing  is  heard 
of  Barima  in  the  Dutch  records. 

From  the  above  it  appears  that  no  settlement  was  made  in  the 
Barima  in  the  seventeenth  century  by  the  Dutch.  The  temporary 
employment  of  one  of  the  Company's  servants  there,  referred  to 
in  the  letter  of  December  25,  1683,  already  quoted,  certainly  was 
not  such  a  settlement. 

The  only  question  that  remains  to  be  considered  is  as  to  the 
significance  of  the  erection  of  the  shelter  spoken  of  in  the  second 
letter.  Except  two  occurrences  in  1766  and  1768,  this  shelter  is 
the  very  slight  foundation  for  the  only  claim  to  Dutch  settlement 
in  Barima. 

The  words  used  in  the  Dutch  text,  which  have  been  translated 
"a  small  shelter"  in  the  Venezuelan  Case  (V.  C.  II,  45),  and, 
very  inaccurately,  "a  small  station  "  in  the  British  Case  (B.  C.  I, 
186)  are  "  een  kleijn  pleijsterhuijsje.'"  "  Huijsje  "  is  the  diminutive 
of  '' huijs,^'  meaning   "house,"  and  " pZeysfer^mj's/e "  therefore 


DUTCH   SETTLEMENT. 


451 


leans  "  a  little  house  or  hut."  A  " pleijsterhuijsje  "  is  therefore  a 
[* rest  hut."     The  insignificance  of  the  structure  is  additionally 
iforced  by  the  adjective  "kleijn,''  meaning  "little."    It  was, 
therefore,  "a  little  rest-hut." 

Adriaan  van  Berkel,  writing  of  these  Guiana  colonies  only  a 
)w  years  before  (1672),  gives  us  a  vivid  description  of  one  (p.  16). 
[e  is  speaking  of  a  trip  down  the  Berbice.     "  This  night  for  the 
h-st  time  I  slept  on  land,  in  the  forest,  with  my  hammock  made 
ist  to  two  trees.     Just  before  I  was  ready  to  go  to  rest  our  slaves 
lad  built  for  me  a.  pleijsterhuijsje— so  called  by  both  Christians  and 
[ndians—  at  the  place  where  the  hammock  was  to  be  stretched. 
lere  are  four  posts,  the  front  ones  somewhat  higher  than  the 
jar  ones,  covered  over  with  a  roof  of  leaves,  leaves  uncommonly 
irge,   being  usually  4  or  5  feet  long  and   some  2   feet   broad, 
[either  sun  nor  rain  can  here  vex  one,  for  the  leaves  lie  so  close 
ipon  each  other  that  not  even  the  rays  of  that  great  luminary  can 
jnetrate.     Such  pleijsierhuijsjes  one  sees  along  the  entire  river; 
id  one  has  them  built  in  a  moment  wherever  one  will,  for  an  In- 
dian is  like  the  turtle  -everywhere  at  home." 

The  uses  of  a   '^pleijsterhuijsje,''^  namely,  for  a  night  shelter 
the  tropical  climate,  are  clearly  shown  by  the  Journal  of  the 
[ining  Engineer  Hildebrandt  (B.  C.  II,  36-40). 
Thus,  there  is  an  entry  "  Sunday,  January  14  ": 

"  I  at  once  sent  two  negroes  with  six  Indians  to  fetch  thatch  for  the 
lakiiig  of  a  station  [pleijsterhuijsje],  so  as  to  keep  dry  at  night." 

Also 

"  Monday,  January  15. — Began  having  another  station  [een  ancler 
Pleijsterhuijsje]  made  up  on  the  mountain  for  me  and  my  people." 

On  Thursday,  July  18,  the  writer  of  the  Journal  again  spends 
^he  night  in  a  "station"  {pleijsterhuijsje),  audi  on  Friday,  July 
19,  he  makes  a  new  "station"  {pleijsterhuijsje). 

It  is  further  to  be  noticed  that  while  the  Commandeur  uses 
lis  word  ^'  pleijsterhuijsje^^  iov  the  "  shelter,"  he  uses  a  totally 


452         •  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

different  word  iD  speaking  of  the  house  for  the  Postholder  in 
Pomeroon,  namely,  "  huijsken  "  (B.  C.  I,  182). 

The  facts  of  the  case,  therefore,  amount  to  this:  That  the 
Commandeur,  in  pursuance  of  a  plan  which  he  submitted  to  the 
Company  for  taking  possession  of  Barima,  but  which  the  Com- 
pany refused  to  approve,  caused  his  Outlier  in  Pomeroon  to  put 
up  a  shelter  such  as  persons  journeying  in  those  parts  were  in  the 
habit  of  putting  up  for  the  night,  of  branches  and  palm-leaves, 
somewhere  in  the  district  to  the  west  of  the  Pomeroon.  Th( 
locality  is  entirely  unknown.  The  use  which  the  Postholder  ol 
Pomeroon  made  of  it  is  entirely  unknown,  if  indeed  he  ever  made 
any.  His  position  as  Postholder  as  well  as  his  post  came  to  ar 
end  two  years  later,  when  the  second  Pomeroon  colony  waj 
founded;  and  after  its  destruction  and  the  establishment  of  the 
later  posts  in  Pomeroon,  Wacupo  and  Moruka,  no  mention  is  evei 
made  of  the  rest-hut. 

It  is,  of  course,  idle  to  attempt  to  connect  the  remains  of  anj 
particular  rest-hut  in  the  Barima  with  the  shelter  which  Beekmai 
caused  his  Outlier  to  put  up  in  1684.  The  structure  was  of  s( 
temporary  a  character  and  in  such  common  use  for  purposes  of  a 
shelter  for  the  night  that  nothing  could  be  predicated  upon  find- 
ing the  remains  of  one  at  this  or  that  particular  spot. 

No  post  was  ever  established  in  Barima.  A  post  was  proposed 
by  Commandeur  Storm  in  1744  (V.  C.  II,  95),  and  the  Company  in 
reply  stated:  *'  We  are  not  averse  to  your  making  a  trial"  {id.)\ 
but  two  years  later,  in  1746,  Storm  reports:  "  I  have  not  yet 
established  any  post  in  Barima  "  (V.  C.  II,  96).  No  further  men* 
tion  of  a  post  is  made  in  the  evidence.  In  the  muster-rolls,  which 
run  from  1691  to  1786,  in  an  unbroken  sequence,  there  is  no  men- 
tion of  any  employee  in  the  Barima  of  any  kind  whatever;  and  as 
these  muster-rolls  were  most  careful  to  specify  the  locality  in 
which  the  employee  was  occupied,  and  mentioned  every  employee 
in  the  colony,  it  is  conclusive  proof  that  no  one  was  ever  so 
employed.      The    whole  course  of  the  correspondence  and  thi 


DUTCH  SETTLEMENT.  .  463 

whole  history  of  affairs  in  Barima  confirms  this  conclusion,  while 
so  much  of  it  as  relates  to  the  posts  at  Pomeroon  and  Moruka 
make  it  certain  that  no  post  ever  existed  to  the  west  of  the 
latter  point. 

"The  "shelter"  has  no  bearing  upon  the  question  of  terri- 
torial rights.  In  the  famous  declaration  of  1580  (B.  C-C,  p.  44) 
Queen  Elizabeth  refers  the  claim  that  the  Pope  had  clothed  Spain 
with  the  possession  of  the  New  World,  "on  the  ground  that 
the  Spaniards  have  touched  here  and  there,  have  erected  shelters^ 
have  given  names  to  a  river  or  promontory;  acts  which  cannot 
confer  property. " 

Apart  from  the  erection  of  the  "  shelter,"  only  two  incidents 
are  to  be  noticed  during  the  whole  history  of  the  Dutch  colony 
that  bear  in  any  degree  upon  the  question  of  settlement  in  the 
coast  territory  west  of  the  Pomeroon  and  Moruka. 

The  first  of  these  is  the  Rosen  incident,  in  1766. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  five  years  prior  to  this  date  the 
West  India  Company  had  suspended  the  prosecution  of  the 
Orinoco  trade  by  the  Dutch  colonists,  the  policy  of  the  Company 
being  to  encourage  the  Spaniards  to  carry  on  this  trade  with  Esse- 
quibo  through  the  post  at  Moruka.  The  Barima  district  was  at 
this  time,  and  during  the  rest  of  the  century,  continually  visited 
and  patrolled  by  the  Spanish  authorities,  whose  guard-boats  were 
constantly  in  the  rivers  and  who  exercised  frequent  acts  of 
dominion  throughout  the  territory,  which  will  be  referred  to  later 
under  the  head  of  Political  Control.  It  appears  from  the  state- 
ments of  Director-General  Storm,  of  Essequibo,  that  inhabitants 
from  that  settlement,  comprising  the  offscourings  of  the  colony, 
were  at  this  time  sojourning  as  squatters  in  some  part  of  the 
coast  territory,  in  order  to  obtain  freedom  from  restraint  and  the 
opportunity  to  lead  a  lawless  life.  The  locality  occupied  by  these 
squatters  is  unknown,  but  it  was  somewhere  in  the  neighborhood 
of  the  Barima  River.  The  doings  of  these  Dutchmen  became  a 
public  scandal  at  Essequibo,  and  are  described  in  vivid  language 


454  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

by  Storm,  who  decided  that  the  good  of  the  colony  and  the  main- 
tenance of  friendly  relations  with  Spain  compelled  him  to  take 
notice  of  what  was  going  on.  The  singular  fact,  however,  in  ref- 
erence to  it  is  that,  while  in  an  uncertain  and  hesitating  way 
Storm  from  time  to  time  suggested  to  the  Company  the  assertion 
of  some  Dutch  claim  to  this  territory,  or  part  of  it,  his  first  step 
in  relation  to  these  particular  colonists  was  to  write  to  the  Gov- 
ernor of  Orinoco  and  ask  him  to  take  the  matter  in  hand,  on  the 
ground  that  the  locality  occupied  by  the  squatters  was  in  Spanish 
territory.     He  said,  April  6,  1766  (B.  C.  Ill,  131): 

"  I  shall  write  to  the  Governor  of  Orinoco  concerning  the  state  of  affairs 
in  Barima,  which  will  become  an  absolute  den  of  thieves,  a  rag-tag-and 
bobtail  party  of  our  colonists  staying  there  under  pretence  of  salting,  trad- 
ing with  the  Indians,  and  felling  timber,  &c.  They  live  there  like  sav- 
ages, burning  each  others  huts  and  putting  each  other  in  chains,  and  I 
fear  that  bloodshed  and  murder  will  come  out  of  it. 

"  The  west  side  of  Barima  being  certainly  Spanish  territory  (and  that  is 
where  they  are),  I  can  use  no  violent  measures  to  destroy  this  nest,  not 
wishing  to  give  any  grounds  for  complaint ;  wherefore  I  think  of  proposing 
to  the  Governor  (who  is  daily  being  more  highly  praised  for  his  friendli- 
ness to  all  foreigners)  to  carry  this  out  hand-in-hand,  or  to  permit  me  to 
do  so,  or  as  and  in  what  manner  he  shall  consider  best." 

According  to  Storm's  account,  the  Governor,  in  reply,  sent  to 
Storm  a  verbal  message  to  the  effect  ''that  the  best  thing  to  do 
would  be  to  let  those  evil-doers  fight  it  out  "  Thereupon  Storm 
sent  the  Postholder  of  Moruka  to  break  up  "  this  nest,"  but  was 
careful  to  charge  him  to  avoid  the  Spanish  bank  (B.  C.  Ill,  141).  The 
Postholder  found  the  Dutchmen  whom  he  had  come  to  seek  on  the 
right  bank  of  the  Barima.  He  found  that  one  of  them,  Adams, 
was  "  bound  fast  to  a  tree  with  a  chain,  and  nearly  dead,  having 
been  thus  kept  for  over  three  months  by  Jan  Adolph  van  Rose  " 
(B.  C.  Ill,  132).  Both  of  them  belonged  to  the  Essequibo  colony, 
in  which  Rosen  had  always  borne  a  bad  character.  The  Post- 
holder  liberated  Adams  and  brought  Rosen  to  Essequibo,  where 


DUTCH  SETTLEMENT.  465 

he  was  tried  and  punished,  and  the  gang  that  had  established 
itself  in  Barima  was  effectually  broken  up. 

This  certainly  is  not  a  settlement  upon  which  any  claims  are  to 
be  founded.  The  action  of  the  Dutch  Governor,  exercised  over 
Dutchmen,  put  an  end  to  it;  and  he  took  no  action  in  the  matter 
until  after  he  had  asked  and  virtually  received  permission  from 
the  Spanish  Governor. 

The  most  significant  feature  of  this  episode  lies  in  the  fact  that 
immediately  thereafter  the  Court  of  Policy  of  Essequibo  issued  a 
resolution  or  decree  forbidding  all  sojourn  in  Barima.  The  Direc- 
tor reported  this  action  May  30,  1766  (V.  0.  II,  165)  as  follows: 
"  Furthermore,  the  Court  forbade  that  any  one  hereafter  stay  in 
Barima  and  charged  the  Postholder  of  Moruca  to  see  that  this  is 
carried  out,  because  in  time  this  would  become  a  den  of  thieves, 
and  expose  us  to  the  danger  of  getting  mixed  up  in  a  quarrel  with 
our  neighbors,  the  Spaniards." 

This  action  of  the  Dutch  authorities  effectually  disposes  of  any 
claim  to  establish  an  adverse  holding  by  means  of  settlement 
from  this  time  on  in  Barima.  As  long  as  this  order  of  the  Court 
was  in  force,  no  such  settlement  could  be  established.  It  would 
appear  from  the  evidence  to  have  been  never  repealed.  Certainly 
the  Dutch  Government  would  not  be  in  a  position  to  take  advan- 
tage of  the  establishment  of  such  a  settlement  in  violation  of  its 
own  orders;  and  as  far  as  the  control  of  the  Dutch  by  the  colonial 
authorities  was  concerned,  that  control  was  prohibitory  of  settle- 
ment in  this  territory.  The  order  of  the  Court  was  plainly  directed 
to  Dutch  subjects  alone.  Its  terms  show  this.  It  was  to  avoid 
"  the  danger  of  getting  mixed  up  in  a  quarrel  with  our  neighbors, 
the  Spaniards,"  a  danger  which  could  only  arise  from  settlement 
by  its  own  people. 

The  fact,  however,  that  the  order  of  the  Court  of  Policy  was 
'•   personal  and  not  territorial  in  character   is  decisively  established 
by  the  statement  of  Storm  himself.     When  chided  by  the  Com- 


I 


456  ADVERSE  HOLDING, 

pany  with  inconsistency  in  his  action  as  to  Barima,  he  justified 

the  order,  giving  as  one  of  his  reasons: 

"  Because  I  think  that  the  Court  certainly  has  the  power  to  forbid  ita 
citizens  and  colonists  to  go  to  any  places  when  such  is  considered  to  be 
inexpedient  or  dangerous  for  the  Colony"  (V.  C.  II,  1G9). 

This  statement  is  of  vital  importance  in  this  controversy  not 
only  in  reference  to  this  order  respecting  the  coast  district,  but  to 
all  the  Dutch  orders  respecting  the  whole  territory  in  dispute.  In 
the  first  place,  it  shows  that,  as  to  this  particular  order  or  pro- 
hibition, it  referred  only  to  Dutch  subjects,  and  that  it  was  in  no 
sense  an  attempt  to  exercise  territorial  control.  But,  in  th( 
second  place,  —and  this  is  a  matter  so  far  reaching,  that  it  applies 
to  all  the  Dutch  regulations— it  shov^^s  that  the  practice  of  th< 
Dutch  authorities  in  making  these  regulations  or  prohibitions  was 
to  express  them  in  general  terms,  which,  as  far  as  the  mere  lan- 
guage meant,  included  all  persons;  but  that  the  orders  so  framed, 
both  in  their  intention  and  their  operation,  applied,  notwith- 
standing their  general  terms,  only  to  Dutch  subjects.  When  w< 
meet  with  a  prohibition  as  to  trade  or  passports  or  what  not, 
outside  of  the  confines  of  the  actual  settlement  on  the  banks  o 
Essequibo,  it  means  not  an  exercise  of  control  over  such  outside 
territory,  but  an  exercise  of  control  over  the  persons  of  Dutch- 
men. 

It  is  true  that  Storm  also  said  that  the  east  bank  of  the  Barima 
was  "in  our  jurisdiction";  but  in  view  of  his  shifting  attitude, 
both  before  and  after  the  boundary  question,  and  especially  in 
view  of  his  statement  to  the  Governor  of  Surinam,  but  little 
weight  can  be  given  to  this  observation. 

However  the  order  of  the  Dutch  Court  may  be  considered  in 
its  bearings  on  political  control,  there  is  no  doubt  as  to  the  ques- 
tion of  settlement.  The  Dutch  authorities  themselves  prohibited 
Dutch  settlement  in  Barima  in  1766.  What  followed  next,  how- 
ever, affords  a  still  more  curious  illustration  of  the  situation  of 

affairs  in  this  locality. 

:' 


DUTCH  SETTLEMENT.  467 

This  is  the  second  of  the  two  incidents  above  referred  to, 
namely,  the  case  of  La  Riviere. 

So  little  authority  did  the  prohibition  of  the  Dutch  Court  have 
on  Barima,  even  over  Dutch  subjects,  that  one  of  the  colonists, 
Jan  La  Riviere,  in  violation  not  only  of  the  general  order,  but  an 
express  and  particular  prohibition,  actually  undertook  to  settle 
there,  and  shortly  after  died,  leaving  his  widow  in  possession  of 
the  plantation.  This  fact  was  reported  to  the  Spanish  authorities, 
and  the  latter,  having  a  valid  claim  to  the  coast  territory,  which 
they  asseited  in  the  most  emphatic  manner  when  occasion  de- 
manded, upon  learning  that  the  plantation  had  been  established, 
sent  down  their  coast-guard  vessel,  early  in  1768,  under  the  com- 
mand of  Don  Francisco  Uierto,  Captain  of  the  Company  of  Pio- 
neers, drove  out  the  occupants  of  the  plantation,  burned  the 
buildings  and  took  away  the  movable  property,  which  was  confis- 
cated and  sold  for  account  of  the  State  (V.  C.  II,  358-364,  367). 
Against  this  act  the  Dutch  did  not  even  make  a  protest. 

The  locality  of  the  La  Riviere  plantation  is  not  described  or 
reported  by  Cierto.  There  is  nothing  but  speculation  to  guide  the 
investigator  as  to  where  it  was.  A  Spanish  officer,  Inciarte,  passed 
through  the  Barima  in  1779,  and  found  in  the  Aruka  a  hill,  which 
he  was  told  ha'l  been  inhabited  for  a  few  years  by  a  Dutchman  of 
Essequibo  named  "Mener  Nelch."  He  found  the  hull  of  a  canoe, 
which  an  Indian  told  him  had  belonged  to  the  Dutchman,  and  the 
relics  of  coffee  and  fruit  trees.  The  plantation  at  the  time  of  his 
visit  appears  to  have  been  deserted. 

It  is  not  improbable  that  the  deserted  plantation  seen  by  In- 
ciarte was  that  from  which  the  La  Riviere  family  was  driven 
eleven  years  before.  Inferences  to  be  drawn  from  the  alleged 
name  are  too  uncertain  to  be  of  any  value.  A  conjecture  might 
be  hazarded,  however,  that  the  Mener  Nelch  spoken  of  by  the 
Indians  was  intended  for  Mynheer  Nelis  or  Neels,  as  he  was  some- 
times called,  who  was  the  Postholder  of  Pomeroonat  the  time  the 
La  Riviere  family  was  driven  out.     He  remained  as  Postholder 


458  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

until  17Y4,  as  the  records  show.  This  was  five  years  before  In- 
ciarte's  visit.  That  his  name  may  have  been  associated  in  some 
confused  way  with  the  plantation  or  with  Dutchmen  generally 
is  not  unlikely.  It  is  certainly  less  forced  than  the  supposi- 
tion that  Nelis,  the  employee  of  the  colony  who  was  particularly 
charged  with  observing  whether  the  prohibition  upon  settlement 
in  Barima  was  carried  out  should  have  settled  there  himself  after 
the  expiration  of  his  term  of  office.  If  he  did  so  settle  it  could 
only  have  been  as  a  squatter,  in  violation  of  the  prohibition  of  the 
Dutch  Government,  and  for  a  year  or  two  at  most,  and  his  act,  if 
he  committed  such  an  act,  has  no  bearing  upon  this  controversy. 
The  only  comments  made  by  Storm  upon  the  destruction  of  the 
La  Riviere  plantation  occur  in  a  letter  of  June  1,  1768  (V.  0.  II, 
176),  where  he  says: 

"  This  did  not  matter  very  much,  because  I  had  strictly  forbidden  Jan  la 
Riviere  to  settle  between  Essequibo  and  Orinocque,  and  for  greater  security 
I  had  this  inserted  in  his  pass.  He  was  also  forbidden  by  the  Court  to 
settle  in  Barima." 

And  at  a  later  date  (V.  C.  II,  187): 

*' Jan  la  Riviere  (the  same  who  againa^t  the  absolute  prohibition  of  the 
Court  had  gone  with  his  slaves  to  live  in  Barima,  and,  he  having  died 
there,  the  Spaniards  have  robbed  his  widow  of  everything,  she  being  now 
returned  again  into  this  colony)." 

This  is  the  last  allusion  in  history  to  settlement  in  Barima.  In 
the  whole  evidence  in  this  case,  containing,  as  it  does,  a  narrative 
of  the  utmost  minuteness,  set  forth  in  official  records  and  corre- 
spondence, and  embodying  the  labors  and  investigations  of  the 
Foreign  Office,  the  Colonial  Office,  the  U.  S.  Commission,  and 
those  entrusted  with  the  preparation  of  this  case  on  both  sides, 
there  is  no  allusion  other  than  those  above  referred  to  of  a  Dutch, 
settlement  in  the  territoiy  in  dispute  west  of  Moruka  and  north  of 
the  Imataka  Mountains  for  the  period  of  one  hundred  and  sixty- 
six  years,  from  1648  to  1814. 


DUTCH   SETTLEMENT.  469 

These  incidents  are  not  of  such  a  character  that  any  territorial 
title  can  be  based  on  them.  They  lacked  all  the  essential  ingre- 
\  dients.  They  were  not  national  acts;  on  the  contrary,  they  were 
expressly  disavowed  by  the  Dutch  Government.  In  the  first 
case  it  broke  up  the  plantation  itself,  after  calling  on  the  Gov- 
ernor of  Guayana;  in  the  second  case  it  had  made  a  law  forbid- 
ding its  colonists  to  settle  in  the  territory,  and  the  settlement  had 
been  made  in  violation  of  that  law  and  of  a  further  express  pro- 
hibition as  to  the  individual.  Not  only  did  the  settlements  lack 
the  character  of  a  national  act,  but  the  national  authorities  dis- 
owned them.  They  were  in  no  sense  exclusive  of  Spanish  au- 
thority and  settlement;  on  the  contrary,  they  were  excluded,  in 
the  second  case  at  least,  directly  by  Spanish  authority.  They 
were  not  made  under  a  claim  of  right  on  the  part  of  the  Govern- 
ment, or  even  on  the  part  of  the  settlers  themselves  as  represent- 
ing the  Government;  in  fact,  the  Government  repudiated  them. 
Finally,  they  had  no  continuous  existence  for  the  time  required 
by  the  Treaty,  as  they  lasted  only  a  year  or  two  at  the  most. 

In  view  of  the  above  facts,  which  cannot  be  controverted,  it  is 
not  a  little  staitling  to  find  in  the  British  Case  the  following  state- 
ment (p.  51): 

"  There  is  little  doubt  that  at  this  time  [1764]  there  were  Dutch  plan- 
tations in  the  Aruka,  a  tributary  of  the  Barima,  and  at  Koriabo  higher 
pp  on  the  Barima." 

There  is  no  historical  evidence  whatever  that  any  settlements 
ijf  the  Dutch  existed  in  1Y64  in  the  Barima  district.  The  explana- 
tion of  the  statement  is  given  in  what  follows: 

"  There  are  still  visible  traces  of  settlements  at  these  spots,  and  they 
jorrespond  with  the  description  given  of  Dutch  Settlements  then  existing 
n  the  records  of  secret  expeditions  made  by  the  Spaniards  to  the  Barima 
n  1760  and  1768.  In  the  latter  year  the  Spaniards  secretly  and  without 
wevious  complaint  made  a  raid  upon  Barima  and  destroyed  a  Dutch  plan- 
jation,  which  was  probably  in  the  Aruka,  but  they  did  not  themselves 
told  or  occupy  the  district  of  the  river." 


460  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

The  same  statement  is  repeated  in  the  text  of  the  British  Case, 
at  p.  68,  where  it  says: 

"The  traces  of  cultivation  remaining  in  the  Aruka  and  at  Koriabo 
probably  mark  the  sites  of  plantations,  one  of  which  was  probably  that 
destroyed  by  the  Spanish  secret  expedition  in  1768  and  another  that 
reported  in  1760,  but  which  was  situated  too  far  up  the  Barima  for  the 
Spaniards  to  reach." 

The  question  as  to  what  these  "  traces  "  mean  will  be  dealt 
with  presently.  The  first  question,  however,  to  consider,  is  the 
statement  made  in  two  places  in  the  text  of  the  British  Case, 
that,  as  a  historical  fact,  apart  from  traces,  "settlements"  (as  is 
stated  on  page  51)  or  "plantations"  (as  is  stated  on  page  68) 
existed  in  Barima  in  17'64,  and  were  reported  by  the  Spaniards,  as 
a  result  of  expeditions  made  by  them  in  1760  and  1768. 

The  expedition  of  the  Spaniards  in  1768  was  that  of  Cierto, 
already  referred  to,  which  destroyed  the  La  Riviere  plantation. 
It  is  possible,  though  hardly  probable,  that  the  plantation  left 
"  traces  "  which  were  still  visible  in  the  present  century.  The  evi- 
idence  is  conclusive,  however,  that  this  plantation  did  not  exist  in 
1764.  Storm  himself  says,  in  the  passage  above  cited  (V.  C.  II, 
187),  that  La  Riviere  had  gone  into  Barima  after  the  prohibition 
of  the  Court,  which,  as  already  stated,  was  only  decreed  in  1760. 
The  plantation  could  not,  therefore,  have  been  in  existence  for 
more  than  two  years  at  the  outside. 

The  allusion  to  the  expedition  of  1760  merits  further  investiga- 
tion. The  claim  is  here  made  by  the  very  text  of  the  British  Casel 
(p.  51)  that  the  traces  "correspond  with  the  description  given  of; 

Dutch  settlements  then  existing  "  in  the  record  of  the  expedition; 

i- 
"  made  by  the  Spaniards  to  the  Barima  in  1760."    The  statement| 

is  reiterated   with   additional  force  at  page  68  that  the  traces 

"probably  mark  the  sites  of  plantations,"  one,  that  of  1768,  "and 

another  that  reported  in  1760,  but  which  was  situated  too  far  u\ 

the  Barima  for  the  Spaniards  to  reach." 

The  text,  therefore,  states  in  terms  in  one  place  that  a  Dutch 

ii 


DUTCH  SETTLEMENT.  461 

settlement  was  found,  and  in  the  other  that  a  plantation  was  de- 
scribed and  reported  by  the  expedition  of  1760.  It  is  an  intima- 
tion that  another  settlement,  which  was  also  a  plantation,  actu- 
ally existed  as  a  historical  fact,  and  that  it  was  reported  to  the 
Spanish  authorities  in  1760.  The  reference  in  the  text  of  the  Case 
is  B.  C.  II,  pages  189-90.  These  pages  contain  the  report  of 
Flores,  a  Lieutenant  of  Infantry,  who  was  in  command  of  a  de- 
tachment engaged,  according  to  the  customary  practice  of  the 
Spanish  authorities,  in  patrolling  the  Barima  district,  under  the 
orders  of  Don  Juan  Valdes,  the  Commandant  at  Orinoco.  The 
report  refers  especially  to  certain  seizures  of  Dutch  vessels  and 
canoes  in  the  Barima  and  Lower  Orinoco.  Flores  also  states  that 
he  had  been  obliged  to  put  several  of  his  men  aboard  of  the  vessels 
which  he  had  seized,  and  that  *' being  informed  that  it  took  five 
days  to  go  up  to  the  place  in  which  traffickers  in  poitos  were;  for 
this  reason,"  and  because  they  would  be  warned  of  his  coming, 
"he  resolved  to  turn  back." 

Turning  to  the  orders  under  which  Flores  was  acting  (B.  C.  II, 
187),  it  appears  that  four  Indians  had  recently  escaped  from  a 
party  of  Dutch  slave  traders  in  Barima,  but  the  traders  were 
waiting  at  their  huts  for  another  batch  which  they  had  ordered, 
"  after  which  they  are  going  back  at  once  to  their  colony  with  the 
product  of  this  illicit  transaction,"  and  that  Flores  was  ordered  to 
capture  them. 

.  It  also  appears  from  the  declaration  of  the  Arawak  half-breed 
Yana  (who  was  captured  by  the  expedition),  which  is  annexed  to 
the  report  (B.  C.  11,  194),  that  "the  Dutch  buyers  of  poitos  were 
not  from  the  Colony  of  Essequibo,  but  from  that  of  Surinam,  be- 
cause the  Governor  of  Essequibo  did  not  allow  any  Dutchman  to 
,  go  and  conduct  this  traffic." 

This  is  the  only  reference  in  the  evidence  to  what  the  British 
;  Case  has  in  two  places  cited  as  a  historical  "settlement"  or  his- 
torical "plantation"  of  the  Essequibo  colony  in  Barima,  and  of 
'  which  it  gravely  assei ts  that  the   "traces"  found  in  the  Aruka 


462  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 


J 


and  at  Koriabo  may  be  the  remains.  It  consisted  of  a  party  oi 
prowling  Surinam  slave  traders,  who  were  "  going  back  at  once  t 
their  colony,"  and  who,  while  waiting  for  the  Caribs  to  bring  in 
the  poiios,  put  up  huts  for  shelter,  as  did  every  one  else,  Spanish, 
French,  Dutch,  or  Indian,  who  had  occasion  to  pass  a  night  on 
shore  in  Barima.  If  this  is  the  kind  of  "plantation"  which  the 
"  remains"  indicate,  the  only  wonder  is  that  there  is  an  acre  of 
clear  ground  in  the  disputed  territory  which  does  not  show  "  the 
remains  of  a  plantation." 

The  historical  evidence  as  to  the  question  of  settlement  being 
disposed  of,  it  remains  to  consider  the  evidence  which  has  been 
brought  forward  in  the  British  Case  of  what  maybe  classed  under 
the  general  name  of  "traces."  There  is  a  good  deal  of  this  so- 
called  evidence,  prepared  for  the  most  part  by  officials  and  em- 
ployees of  the  existing  British  Colony  after  Her  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment had  set  up  their  claim  to  the  Schomburgk  hne.  None  of  it 
finds  any  support  in  the  records  of  either  colony  prior  to  1814, 
except  in  so  far  as  the  supposed  "traces"  may  refer  to  one  or 
another  of  the  "settlements"  whose  history  has  been  followed  in 
this  chapter.  As  the  locality  and  extent  of  these  "settlements  " 
is  entirely  unknown,  they  may  serve  as  the  explanation  of  a  great 
many  of  the  "  traces." 

Apart  from  the  plantation  of  the  La  Rivere  family,  and  from 
the  fact  so  vividly  described  by  Director-General  Storm  that  "a 
rag-tag  and  bobtail  party  of  our  colonists,  staying  there  upon  pre- 
tence of  salting,"  &c.,  "live  there  like  savages,  burning  each 
others'  huts,"  to  the  west  of  Barima,  as  he  had  heard,  or  to  the 
east  of  it,  as  he  found  in  the  case  of  two  of  them,  the  extent  or 
numbers  of  whom  cannot  now  be  ascertained,  the  existence  of 
"traces"  is  entirely  inconclusive  as  to  Dutch  settlement  in  a  terri- 
tory in  which  for  a  considerable  number  of  years  the  French  weret 
actively  trading,  and  the  Spanish  for  more  than  a  century  wen 
constantly  present,  and  exercising  on  frequent  occasions  active 
dominion  and  control.  i, 


DUTCH   SETTLEMENT.  463 

It  is  not  here  claimed  that  the  "traces'*  are  conclusive  of 
French  settlement  or  of  Spanish  settlement;  although  French- 
men at  least,  being  so  much  further  from  home  than  the  Dutch, 
would  probably  come  for  a  longer  stay,  and  establish  themselves 
with  a  greater  evidence  of  permanence.  It  is  only  claimed  that 
they  afford  us  no  evidence  of  Dutch  settlement. 

Out  of  all  the  traces  cited  (and  it  is  to  be  observed  that  many 
of  them  refer  to  the  same  thing)  none  can  be  pointed  out  that 
have  about  them  marks  indicative  of  any  particular  nationality. 

The  attempt  has  also  been  made  to  sustain  the  evidence  of 
"  traces  "  by  "  tradition."  "  Tradition  "  means  in  this  case  either 
the  alleged  statements  of  Indians  of  a  very  recent  period,  reported 
by  some  one  who  professes  to  have  heard  them,  or  the  declarations 
of  such  Indians  themselves,  made  with  the  usual  formalities  and 
taken  under  official  direction  in  British  Guiana  since  the  present 
arbitration  was  provided  for  by  the  Venezuelan- British  Treaty. 
Of  the  latter  kind  are  the  depositions  of  the  Warrau  Waiakumma, 
and  the  Warrau  woman  Burriburrikutu,  printed  in  B.  C.  VII,  209. 
These  deponents  to  "  tradition  "  as  a  rule  cannot  write,  and  their 
testimony  relates  to  what  happened  at  or  before  the  beginning  of 
the  present  century.  Its  value  as  evidence  is  not  such  as  to 
entitle  it  to  any  consideration  whatever. 

The  present  Argument  has  taken  up,  seriatim,  not  only  all  the 
historical  evidence  of  settlement  in  the  case,  but  also  all  to  which 
the  British  Case  makes  allusion  as  historical  evidence. 

The  question  remains  as  to  the  significance  of  the  so-called 
! "  traces,"  all  of  which  belong  to  the  present  century  and  are  sub- 
I sequent  to  the  construction  of  what  is  known  as  the  Schomburgk 
!  line  as  a  suggestion  for  a  boundary  claim. 

These  "  traces  "  are  of  two  classes:  first,  those  discovered  by 
Schomburgk  at  the  time  of  the  invention  of  his  line,  and,  secondly, 
: those  discovered  by  the  authorities  of  British  Guiana  subsequent 
jtothe  Treaty  of  Arbitration,  which  set  on  foot  the  present  pro- 
ceeding. 


4:64  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

In  reference  to  the  first,  it  may  be  remarked  that  Schomburgk 
himself  was  the  only  discoverer  of  these  "  traces."  Thus,  at  tlie 
mouth  of  the  Barima  (B.  C.  VII,  13),  he  finds  evident  proofs  that 
the  ground  had  been  under  cultivation,  and  notes  some  cassava 
plants  and  shrubs  of  annatto,  which  he  says  do  not  grow  wild  on 
ground  subject  to  the  tides.  He  also  states  that  Colonel  Moody,  of 
the  Royal  Engineers,  who  reported  on  the  military  situation  of  the 
Orinoco  at  tlie  beginning  of  the  century,  observed  at  the  mouth  of 
the  Barima  the  remains  of  a  former  post,  which  Schomburgk  at- 
tributes to  the  Dutch. 

These  matters  are  considered  of  sufficient  importance  to  be  set 
out  at  length  and  with  all  seriousness  in  the  British  Case,  at  page 
6T.  In  reference  to  the  plantation  at  the  mouth  of  the  Barima, 
and  especially  the  cassava  plants  and  shrubs  of  annatto,  it  should 
be  stated  that  both  these  valuable  products  were  raised  by  the 
Indians,  and  in  fact,  as  far  as  the  Indians  had  an  occupation  at 
all,  the  raising  of  annatto  and  cassava  constituted  that  occupation. 
Both  of  them  are  mentioned  as  being  bought  in  innumerable  cases 
by  the  traders  from  the  Indians,  and  the  fact  that  plants  of  this 
character  grew  at  Barima  Point,  whether  wild  or  cultivated,  sig- 
nifies absolutely  nothing. 

As  to  the  post  on  the  Barima,  which  Schomburgk,  without 
reason,  attributes  to  the  Dutch,  we  only  know  of  its  remains 
through  Schoraburgk's  reference  to  Colonel  Moody's  report,  which 
cannot  now  be  found,  and  Schomburgk's  comments  upon  it  give 
us  no  clew  as  to  what  was  actually  seen  by  Colonel  Moody.  He 
may  have  seen  the  remains  of  a  post  or  of  a  fort.  He  may  have 
seen  little  or  nothing  for  we  have  no  knowledge  from  him  of  what 
he  did  see. 

As  to  the  remains  of  a  post,  as  a  post  may  be  anything  from  a 
palm-leaf  hut  suitable  for  a  night-shelter,  like  the  first  post  in 
Cuyuni,  to  a  stockade,  or  a  blockhouse,  or  even  a  fort,  it  is  im- 
possible to  predicate  anything  of  the  remains  of  a  "  post  "  without 
knowing  of  what  they  consisted.     Anybody  might  have  built  a 


DUTCH  SETTLEMENT.  465 

shelter  at  Barima  Point,  and  doubtless  such  a  shelter  was  built 
time  after  time  during  the  history  of  the  Dutch  and  Spanish 
colonies.  If  the  remains  were  those  of  a  fort,  unquestionably  it 
was  the  fort  which,  as  we  know,  was  built  and  occupied  by  the 
French  at  the  mouth  of  the  Barima  in  the  latter  part  of  the  seven 
teenth  century.  The  matter,  however,  is  purely  conjectural,  as 
there  is  no  evidence  as  to  what  the  **  remains  "  were. 

It  is  also  stated  that  the  Indians  pointed  out  to  Schomburgk  a 
spot  on  the  River  Herena,  a  tributary  of  the  Barima,  not  far 
from  Koriabo,  where  a  white  man  had  cultivated  sugar  and  car- 
ried on  a  timber  trade  (B.  C,  VII,  21,  237).  According  to  the 
statement,  the  place  was  called  by  the  Indians  "the  last  place 
of  the  white  man,"  and  traces  of  cultivation  and  drainage  were 
still  to  be  found  there  in  1840. 

This  statement  also  is  set  forth  at  length  in  the  text  of  the 
British  Case  (p.  07),  and  Schomburgk  on  his  map  designated  the 
place  by  the  alleged  translation  of  the  Indian  name.  Who  the 
last  white  man  was  who  occupied  this  spot,  and  whether  he  was 
a  Spaniard  or  a  Dutchman,  no  one  knows.  He  might  well  have 
been  a  Spaniard,  seeing  that  both  in  reference  to  the  intercolonial 
trade  and  in  reference  to  the  exercise  of  physical  control  in  the 
Barima,  the  Spaniards  certainly  were  the  last  white  men  up  to 
the  time  of  Schomburgk.  These  particular  ''traces,"  therefore, 
would  seem  to  make  for  Spanish  rather  than  Dutch  settlement. 

An  exhaustive  analysis  of  all  the  modern  evidence  of  "  traces  " 
and  "tradition,"  with  which  it  is  unnecessary  to  load  this  argu- 
i  ment,  shows  only  two  material  facts:  one,  the  existence  of  fruit 
trees,  pointing  to  some  settlement  on  the  Aruka,  and  of  ditches, 
pointing  to  some  settlement  on  the  Barima,  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Koriabo.  The  Indian  affidavits  as  to  their  Dutch  origin  may  be 
dismissed  without  comment,  the  sources  of  information  are  so 
obviously  remote  and  the  construction  of  the  affidavits  being  so 
obviously  open  to  the  suggestion  of  interest.  The  mere  presence 
of  clearings  indicates  nothing.    It  is  obvious  from  the  affidavits 


466  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

that  the  Indians  themselves  were  in  the  habit  of  making  clearings. 
The  contention  that  the  presence  of  fruit  trees  points  to  a  planta- 
tion of  white  men,  is  fully  disproved  by  Schombargk's  account  of 
his  first  exploration  near  the  upper  Barima  and  Acarabisi  where 
he  found  many  Indian  plantations  containing  such  trees  (B.  C. 
VII,        ). 

As  to  the  ditches,  if  such  methods  of  drainage  were  much  in 
use  in  the  Dutch  colony  of  Essequibo,  as  well  as  among  the  Span- 
ish inhabitants  of  the  wide-stretching  lowlands  of  what  is  now 
Venezuela  and  what  was  formerly  the  Province  of  Cumana,  as 
they  doubtless  were,  it  would  not  be  surprising  that,  in  the  course 
of  a  couple  of  centuries,  some  Indians  might  have  learned  to  dig 
them,  and  this,  too,  although  it  might  be  said  with  truth  that,  as 
far  as  living  observers  are  concerned,  such  a  practice  among  the 
Indians  is  not  known.  It  is  difficult  for  any  living  observer  to  say 
exactly  what  the  Arawaks  and  Warows,  the  Caribs  and  the  Ac- 
coways,  were  and  were  not  doing  during  the  whole  of  the  seven- 
teenth and  eighteenth  centuries  in  the  district  of  Barima.  As 
they  undoubtedly  had  to  enlarge  and  deepen  the  "itabos"  from 
time  to  time  in  order  to  pass  through  them,  and  as  they  undoubt- 
edly saw  numerous  instances  of  the  advantage  of  opening  ditches 
in  a  swampy  country  from  their  neighbors  on  both  sides,  it  is 
more  than  probable  that  they  made,  at  one  point  or  another, 
during  these  two  centuries,  half  a  dozen  such  ditches.  Indeed, 
from  the  very  fact  mentioned  by  im  Thurn,  that  an  Indian  name 
*'  hokaba"  existed,  which  meant  an  artificial  water-course,  their 
familiarity  with  the  thing  itself  is  evident.  Nor  is  it  unreasonable 
to  suppose  that  these  Indians,  whose  settlements  and  villages  in 
Barima  are  well-known,  and  who  certainly  were  cultivating  the 
soil  to  raise  cassava  and  annatto,  might  also  have  obtained  from 
time  to  time  from  their  neighbors  on  one  side  or  the  other  the 
seeds  of  cocoa,  coffee  or  fruit  trees. 

But  even  if  these  were  not  Indian  settlements,  there  is  no  more 
reason  to  suppose  that  they  were  settlements  of  Dutch  from  Esse- 


DUTCH   SETTLEMENT.  467 

quibo  than  of  Spaniards,  or  Frenchmen,  or  Dutch  from  Surinam. 
All  of  these  were  present  at  one  time  or  another  in  this  territory, 
some  of  them,  as  the  French,  only  for  a  well-defined  series  of 
years;  others,  as  the  Spaniards  and  the  Surinamers,  through  two 
centuries.  It  is  difficult  to  predicate  from  the  presence  of  a  few 
fruit  trees  in  one  locality  and  a  few  ditches  in  another  anything  as 
to  what  may  have  happened  in  a  given  territory  during  a  period 
of  two  hundred  years.  Conceding,  however,  for  the  sake  of  the 
argument,  that  the  "  traces"  represent  settlements  of  white  men, 
and  that  these  white  men  may  have  been  Dutch,  they  still  would 
have  no  significance  in  deciding  this  controversy.  In  the  two  set- 
tlements which  have  already  been  I'eferred  to  in  this  Argument  as 
historical,  namely,  that  of  Rosen  and  his  companions  in  1766,  and 
that  of  La  Riviere  and  his  widow  in  1768,  the  localities  of  which 
are  unknown,  there  is  quite  enough  of  itself  to  account  for  every- 
thing, whether  visible  remains  or  Indian  traditions,  that  is  con- 
tained in  all  of  these  affidavits.  That  these  two  cases  of  so-called 
settlement  cannot  be  the  foundation  for  any  territorial  claims  has 
already  been  shown.  Even  if  there  were  other  settlements  at  the 
same  period,  the  fact  that  they  were  made  in  the  face  of  a  prohi- 
bition of  the  Dutch  Colonial  authorities  to  settlers  in  the  colony 
would  deprive  them  of  any  value  in  this  respect.  Settlement,  in 
order  to  become  the  foundation  of  a  territorial  claim,  must  be  a 
settlement  which  in  some  way  bears  the  stamp  of  a  national  act, 
either  by  reason  of  Government  grants,  or  by  some  other  mark  of 
authoi'ity  and  countenance  from  the  Government.  Where  such  a 
settlement  is  made  not  only  without  the  approval  and  countenance 
of  the  Governmant,  bat  with  its  distinct  and  emphatic  disapproval 
and  in  defiance  of  its  express  prohibition,  it  has  no  bearing  upon 
territorial  claims  whatever. 

Any  settlement  made  in  Barima  after  the  order  of  the  Court  of 
Policy  of  1766  is  a  settlement  made  not  with  Dutch  authority,  but 
distinctly  in  opposition  to  Dutch  authority. 

The  entire  evidence  on  this  branch  of  the  subject  may  be 


■ 


468 


ADVERSE  HOLDING. 


briefly  disposed  of.  What  happened  in  the  district  of  Barima, 
as  evidenced  by  contemporaneous  statements,  documents  and 
records,  we  may  take  as  evidence  of  a  certain  weight,  according 
to  the  surrounding  circumstances.  But  as  to  drawing  inferences 
from  the  presence  of  fruit  trees,  or  ditches,  in  two  or  three  places, 
as  to  the  creation  of  a  settlement  by  this  or  that  person  or  class  of 
persons  who  might  at  one  time  or  another  have  passed  through 
Barima  during  the  course  of  two  hundred  years,  the  evidence  is 
entirely  worthless.  The  presence  of  these  vestiges  is  in  no  way 
remarkable.  What  is  really  remarkable,  and  we  may  say  almost 
amazing,  is  that,  with  all  the  means  of  investigation  in  their  pos- 
session, and  with  the  help  of  surprisingly  zealous  and  able  public 
officials,  backed  by  a  large  population  of  only  too  willing  Indians, 
the  British  Case  can  produce  only  such  shreds  of  testimony  as  to 
settlement  of  any  kind,  anybody,  in  the  district  of  Barima. 

The  question  of  Dutch  settlement  in  Barima  may  be  dismissed 
in  a  word.  The  Case  shows  affirmatively  and  positively  that  no 
such  settlement  was  ever  made,  during  the  whole  period  of  the 
Dutch  colony,  by  Dutch  authority,  even  before  the  Colony  pro- 
hibited it  in  1766,  and  that  no  Dutch  settler  was  even  there  with  a 
knowledge  of  the  Colonial  authorities,  except  in  the  case  of  Rosen, 
which  led  to  the  order  forbidding  settlement.  In  the  face  of  such 
a  record,  it  is  idle  to  attempt  to  bolster  up  this  Case  with  sugges- 
tions about  fruit  trees,  and  ditches,  and  traditions,  and  matters  of 
that  kind.  The  Dutch  colonial  records  are  here,  spread  out  to 
interminable  length,  dealing  with  every  detail  of  colonial  life  with 
a  minuteness  that  would  neither  have  been  required  nor  permitted 
had  not  the  government  been  that  of  a  trading  colony.  With 
every  grant  of  land  set  forth,  with  every  occurrence  of  any  mo- 
ment that  happened  in  its  history,  there  is  not  one  syllable  in 
it  from  beginning  to  end  to  indicate  that  the  Dutch  ever  knew  of 
any  settlement  in  Barima, 


CHAPTER  Xm. 
POLITICAL  CONTROL, 

In  view  of  the  fact  that,  under  the  Treaty,  the  Arbitrators  are 
empowered  in  their  discretion  to  consider  the  exclusive  political 
control  of  a  district  sufficient  to  constitute  adverse  holding,  or  to 
make  title  by  prescription,  it  becomes  necessary  to  refer  to  the 
necessary  attributes  or  requirements  of  such  control. 

The  general  principles  and  definitions  of  the  phrase  ''political 
control,"  as  used  in  the  Treaty,  have  already  been  considered,  and. 
it  has  been  shown  to  be  the  exercise  of  sovereignty  over  territory 
through  political  or  governmental  administration;  and,  further, 
that  "  exclusive  political  control  of  a  district"  means  such  an  ex- 
ercise of  sovereignty  over  the  district  to  the  exclusion  of  all  other 
sovereignty. 

Political  control  or  jurisdiction  may  be  either  territorial  or 
personal.  In  general,  the  political  control  which  is  implied  in  the 
term  "  sovereignty  "  is  a  control  exercised  over  everybody  in  the 
territory  of  the  sovereign,  and  over  the  subjects  of  the  sovereign 
everywhere.  In  the  first  sense,  it  is  territorial;  in  the  second,  it 
is  personal. 

The  political  control  of  which  the  treaty  speaks  is  political  con- 
trol of  a  district.  It  must  therefore  include  territorial  control. 
Mere  personal  control  of  subjects  is  not  sufficient.  It  is  not 
enough  to  show  that  the  Government  making  the  claim  exercised 
control  over  its  subjects  either  in  what  were  its  undisputed  ter- 
ritories, or  in  territories  outside  of  these,  whether  in  dispute  or 
not.  The  present  controversy  is  not  concerned  with  such  con- 
trol. Such  a  control-as  this  may  be,  and  generally  is,  very  freely 
exercised  by  Colonial  Governments  in  a  country  as  yet  not  fully  set- 
tled. An  offending  subject  who  has  committed  an  offense  against 
the  person  or  the  property  of  another  subject,  or  who  has  per- 


470  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

formed  acts  injurious  to  the  State,  such  as  quarrelling  or  med- 
dling with  the  Indians,  or  has  done  anything  which  is  contrary  to 
public  policy  or  of  which  the  law  takes  cognizance,  is  in  such 
Governments  punished  without  reference  to  the  place  where  the 
offence  was  committed. 

Thus  it  happened  once  or  twice  that  the  Dutch  authorities  found 
a  Dutchman  stirring  up  the  Indians  or  ill-treating  them  in  such 
a  way  as  to  provoke  reprisals  and  punished  the  Dutchman.  They 
also  found  Dutchmen  committing  offenses  against  other  Dutch- 
men which  they  punibhed  as  those  of  Cauderas  and  Van  Rosen. 

The  Governor  of  the  Dutch  colony,  like  the  Governors  of  all 
colonies  of  the  period,  and  as  a  matter  of  necessity  under  the  cir- 
cumstances, exercised  a  disciplinary  oversight  of  the  colonoists. 
Such  an  oversight  was  necessary  for  the  safety  of  the  colony,  and 
,  was  exercised  by  him  freely  upon  the  members  of  the  colony 
wherever  they  might  be. 

The  exercise  of  this  personal  jurisdiction  is  fully  recognized  by 
International  Law.     Says  Mr.  Justice  Johnson: 

"  The  jurisdiction  of  a  country  may  be  exercised  over  her  citizens 
wherever  they  are,  in  right  of  their  allegiance  ;  as  it  has  been  in  the  in- 
stance of  punishing  offenses  committed  against  the  Indian." 

Cherokee  Nation  v.  State  of  Georgia,  5  Peters,  U.  S.  Sn[). 
Ct.  Rep.,  ],  at  page  31. 

Territorial  jurisdiction,  on  the  other  hand,  is  a  jurisdiction  ex- 
ercised not  with  reference  to  the  citizenship  or  nationality  of  the 
individual,  but  with  refeience  to  the  territory  upon  which  the 
offender  is  found,   or  in   which   the  offense  is  committed.     It 
operates  not  only  upon  the  citizens  or  subjects  of  the  Government, 
which  exercises  it,  but  it  operates  in  like  manner  upon  foreign' 
citizens  or  subjects.     No  one  within  the  territory  is  exempt  from^ 
the  operation  of  the  territorial  law.     That  is  an  elementary  propo-^ 
sition.    As,  therefore,  it  is  hardly  to  be  supposed  that  in  a  district 
promiscuously  occupied  by  the  subjects  of  one  State  and  by  th< 
subjects  of  another  State,  possibly  with  numerous  others  als( 


POLITICAL  CONTROL.  471 

coming  in  from  a  third  State,  all  the  offences  are  committed  only 
by  the  subjects  of  the  first  State,  a  political  control  territorial  in 
its  character  will  be  disclosed  immediately  by  the  trial  and  punish- 
ment of  offenders  from  among  the  subjects  of  the  other  State. 
If  it  turns  out,  however,  that  no  such  jurisdiction  is  claimed 
in  reference  to  any  but  the  subjects  of  one  State,  who  are,  if 
anything,  in  the  minority,  it  is  conclusive  evidence  that  whatever 
control  is  exercised  is  not  territorial,  but  personal. 
j  Applying  these  principles  to  the  disputed  territory,  it  will  be 

found  that  the  Dutch  authority  was  never  exercised,  either  by 
way  of  process  and  arrest,  or  process  without  arrest,  or  arrest 
without  process,  or  trial  and  punishment,  or  trial  without  punish- 
ment, or  punishment  without  trial,  against  any  Spaniards  or 
ji  against  any  Frenchmen.  It  was  not  until  they  came  within 
'  the  Eesequibo  or  Pomeroon  limits  comprising  their  actual  settle- 
ments and  plantations,  that  any  jurisdictional  measures  were 
taken  against  foreigners,  and  then  only  for  acts  actually  com- 
mitted in  such  territory,  or  for  offences  against  the  territorial 
authority  at  the  frontier,  such  as  smuggling  and  the  like.  Within 
these  frontiers,  within,  that  is  to  say,  the  falls  of  the  Cuyuni,  on 
banks  of  the  Essequibo  and  Pomeroon,  they  did  exercise  this  juris- 
diction. There  they  arrested  Spaniards,  Frenchmen  and  English- 
men. But  they  never  did  anything  of  the  kind  outside.  Nor  did 
they  snforce  any  authority  against  Dutchmen  unless  they  belonged 
to  the  colony  of  Essequibo. 

There  being  an  entire  absence  of  evidence  in  the  British  Case 
as  to  any  real  political  control  over  the  territory  west  of  the 
Moruca  and  of  the  falls  of  the  Cuyuni,  the  Case  has  attempted 
to  supply  the  want  by  an  immense  mass  of  material  relating  to 
miscellaneous  acts  in  the  disputed  territory,  such  as  trade,  fishing, 
mining,  timber  cutting,  the  relations  with  the  Indians,  the 
capture  of  runaway  slaves  and  what  not.  Each  of  these  is  con- 
sidered in  its  proper  place  in  this  Argument,  and  it  is  shown  that 


-t72  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

such  of  the  acts  referred  to  as  were  performed  at  all,  were  in  no 
sense  acts  of  political  control. 

Even  the  alleged  regulation  of  trade  by  the  Dutch  authorities 
was  merely  the  enforcement  of  a  prohibition  on  its  own  subjects, 
in  order  that  they  might  not  enter  into  competition  with  the  Com- 
pany. The  latter  never  did  an  act  or  took  a  step  of  any  kind 
whatever  to  prohibit  this  trade  in  its  freest  form  to  any  person 
outside  of  the  Dutch  colonists.  Its  monopoly  of  the  trade,  so  far 
as  it  had  any,  was  in  the  nature  of  personal  control  of  its  sub- 
jects, not  in  any  sense  of  territorial  control  as  to  the  territory 
where  the  trade  was  carried  on. 

In  order  to  have  any  signijficance,  under  the  Treaty,  political 
control,  or  the  exercise  of  sovereignty  through  political  or  govern- 
mental administration,  must  be  to  the  exclusion,  during  the  entire 
period,  of  all  other  sovereignty  and  control. 

It  follows  that  a  political  control,  even  supposing  that  any 
such  was  exercised  by  the  party  claiming  adverse  holding  in  the 
disputed  territory,  which  was  shared  equally  by  both  the  claim- 
ants to  such  territory,  could  not  have  been  an  exclusive  political 
control,  and  could  not  come  within  the  definition  of  the  Treaty. 

Nor  is  the  political  control  which  is  required  in  the  one  case  to 
prevent  the  adverse  holding  from  being  exclusive  any  greater  than 
the  political  control  which,  under  the  Treaty,  is  necessary  to 
establish  the  adverse  holding.  If  the  political  control  necessary 
for  this  purpose  rests  upon  such  acts  as  issuing  passports,  trading, 
holding  relations  with  Indians,  and  the  like,  the  performance  of 
similar  acts  by  anothhs  State,  although  they  may  fall  equally 
short  of  political  control,  is  sufficient  to  prevent  the  first  from 
being  an  exclusive  political  control.  However  slight  may  be  the 
control  exercised  by  the  other  State,  it  is  just  as  effective  a  con- 
trol, it  is  just  as  much  a  political  control,  as  the  control  exercised 
by  the  first,  and  is  all  sufficient  to  prevent  the  latter  from  being 
characterized  as  exclusive.  It  is  not  an  exclusive  political  control, 
where  the  control  is  divided. 


POLITICAL  CONTROL.  473 

The  genernl  principles  which,  as  has  been  already  stated,  gov- 
ern all  questions  of  adverse  holding,  must  be  applied  to  political 
control. 

It  is  for  the  Dutch  or  their  representative  in  this  controversy, 
that  is  to  say,  Great  Britain,  to  show  that  a  political  control  was 
exercised  for  fifty  years  in  the  disputed  territory,  exclusive  in  its 
character  and  such  in  all  its  aspects  as  would  warrant  the  Arbi- 
trators in  accepting  it  as  the  foundation  of  adverse  holding. 

Great  Britain  is,  under  the  Treaty,  to  carve  out,  if  she  can, 
some  part  of  this  territory  in  addition  to  what  was  acquired  by 
the  Treaty  of  1648,  by  means  of  the  provision  as  to  political 
control.  The  only  question  to  be  tried  out  from  that  point  is 
whether  the  Dutch  got  anything  more  away  from  Spain  than 
they  held  and  possessed  at  the  date  of  that  Treaty.  It  matters 
not  whether  Spain  had  thirty  or  forty  mission  villages  in  the  ter- 
ritory west  of  the  Cuyuni,  where  it  exercised  complete  con- 
trol, so  long  as  the  Dutch  exercised  no  such  control.  If  the 
Dutch  exercised  no  control,  the  Spanish  settlements  might  be 
wiped  out,  and  the  question  would  still  be  the  same.  So  it  is  with 
the  whole  Cuyuni  valley  west  of  the  falls,  of  the  whole  district  to 
the  south  and  to  the  north  of  the  Iraataca  range,  from  the  moun- 
tains of  Brazil  to  the  sea-coast;"  it  is  for  Great  Britain  to  show  an 
exclusive  political  control  on  the  part  of  the  Dutch.  Failing  to 
prove  that,  she  fails  to  prove  her  case. 

Political  control,  in  order  to  constitute  adverse  holding,  must 
be  an  actual  control.  Mere  trading  regulations  are  not  enough. 
Mere  instructions  to  Postholders  are  not  enough.  In  order  to 
support  a  claim  of  adverse  holding,  the  control  must  be  actually 
exercised.  The  stationing  of  a  man  in  the  neighborhood  even  of 
a  well-defined  district,  with  the  object  of  observing  that  district, 
is  not  political  control  in  any  sense.  It  is  a  mere  duty  of  observa- 
tion. 

The  claim  of  the  exercise  of  political  control,  even  more  than 
the  claim  of  settlement,  must  have  some  definite  limits.     If  this 


474  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

claim  had  any  foundation,  there  should  be  and  there  would  have 
been,  somewhere  in  the  British  Case,  which  purports  to  be  the 
statement  of  facts  upon  which  that  Government  comes  before  the 
Tribunal,  a  definite  statement  of  the  limits,  more  or  less  precise, 
within  which,  or  of  the  territory  over  which,  the  Dutch  exercised 
political  control,  or  a  district  that  can  be  referred  to  this 
source  of  title.  No  such  statement  is  to  be  found.  There 
is  no  suggestion  throughout  those  documents  that  any  line  pro- 
posed or  any  claim  made  as  the  net  result  of  its  evidence  by  Great 
Britain  is  the  line  within  which  or  up  to  which  political  control 
was  exercised  by  the  Dutch.  It  all  amounts  simply  to  saying: 
"  We  went  here  and  there.  We  traded  here  and  there.  We 
fished  here  and  there.  We  hunted  here  and  there.  We  had  our 
traders  here  and  there,  buying  Indian  girls  and  boys  from  the 
Oaribs,  whom  they  had  captured  in  their  forays  upon  more  peace- 
able tribes.  We  had  a  trading  agent  here  and  there,  during  some 
portion  of  the  time.  But  we  are  unable  to  say  to  what  district  we 
obtained  title  by  these  Acts." 

If  the  British  Case  had  said:  "The  Dutch  Government  exer- 
cised political  control  to  the  falls  of  the  Cuyuni  and  exercised 
political  control  to  the  Pomeroon,  and  therefore,  as  far  as  political 
control  is  concerned,  we  claim  as  our  boundary  a  line  connecting 
the  Pomeroon  and  the  eastern  falls  of  the  Cuyuni,"  this  claim 
might  have  had  some  logical  foundation.  But  the  present  claim  is 
not  a  claim  to  territory  defined  upon  a  state  of  facts,  but  a  claim 
to  territory  to  which  the  facts  bear  no  relation  and  which  is  de- 
fined upon  grounds  of  pure  fancy. 

The  acts  of  the  Dutch  which  are  relied  upon  as  indicating  polit- 
ical control  should  bear  some  indication  that  they  were  done  under 
a  claim  of  the  Dutch  to  sovereignty  over  the  territory  in  question. 

Nowhere  do  we  find  that  any  acts  of  the  Dutch  Government 
were  performed  in  the  exercise  of  a  claim  of  territorial  right  over 
the  country;  and  on  the  other  hand,  we  find  from  their  intimate 


POLITICAL  CONTROL.  4Y5 

correspondence  that  they  did  not  themselves  see  any  foundation 
I  for  a  claim  of  right  in  any  territorial  extension. 

The  necessity  of  continuity,  so  strongly  dwelt  upon  by  all  judi- 
cial authorities  in  cases  of  this  character,  applies  as  well  to  polit- 
;  ical  control  as  to  the  question  of  settlement.     That  exercise  of 
sovereignty,  through  the  agency  of  government,  which  "  political 
iitrol  "  implies  should  be  continuous. 

We  find  that  there  was  no  government  in  the  territory  in  ques- 
Ij  tion  on  the  part  of  the  Dutch;  much  less  was  there  any  continuity 

I  of  government.    The  acts  which  are  cited  as  partaking  of  the  char- 
;i  acter  of  political  control  were  spasmodic,  fitful  and  intermittent. 
li  That  cannot  be  call  a  continuous  political  control  which  is  repre- 
sented by  isolated  instances  of  covert  acts  of  encroachment  or 

i  minor  jurisdiction  fifteen  or  twenty  years  apart.    Such  a  control 
as  that  is  not  a  continuous  control,  and  cannot  be  made  the  foun- 
'  dation  of  adverse  holding. 

j  The  principle  that  advei'se  holding  must  be  open  and  notori- 
i  oos  serves  as  an  additional  reason  to  exclude  certain  acts  cited  as 
'  acts  of  political  control,  which,  from  their  nature  or  their  mode 
of  performance,  were  so  obscure  and  so  absolutely  unknown  to 
any  one  but  the  agent  of  the  Government  immediately  engaged  in 
them  as  to  have  no  significance  as  far  as  establishing  adverse 
holding  is  concerned. 

It  would  hardly  be  necessary  to  dwell  at  any  length  upon  this 

I I  branch  of  the  subject,  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  the  effort  has 
been  made  in  the  British  Case  to  create  some  semblance  of  politi- 
cal control  by  the  citation  of  such  a  number  of  petty  acts  as 
might  be  discovered  by  searching  in  the  records  for  a  period  of  a 
century  and  a  half  that  it  becomes  almost  impossible  to  take  up 
every  one  of  these  acts  for  particular  mention,  and  they  may  be 
uisposed  of  by  reference  to  the  general  principle  which  excludes 
them  from  consideration. 

In  respect  to  this  requirement,  the  striking  contrast  between 
lie  policy  of  the  Spaniards  and  of  the  Dutch  has  already  been 


476  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

noticed.     The  keynote  is  struck  by  Storm  himself,  who  says  of 

the  Spaniards  (V.  C.  II,  15Y): 

"What  can  we  expect  from  the  numerous  arrivals  of  settlers  in  Cay- 
enne and  the  removal  of  the  Spanish  colonies  in  Guayana  so  much  nearer 
to  our  boundaries  ?  The  latter  go  to  work  openly,  like  a  proud  nation, 
and  they  can  therefore  be  better  opposed,  an  open  enemy  never  being  so 
dangerous  as  a  secret  one." 

Contrast  with  this  the  policy  of  the  Company  as  disclosed  in 
the  correspondence  between  its  Managing  Council  and  its 
Director.  Again  and  again  Storm  is  cautioned  by  the  Company 
that  he  is  not  to  oppose  the  Spaniards  openly.  Various  reasons 
for  this  are  hinted  at;  but  the  principal  reason  is  the  absence  of 
any  ground  of  right.  It  is  suggested  to  him  that  he  should 
quietly  take  measures  to  have  the  Spanish  missions  attacked  by 
the  Caiibs,  which  is  done;  that  he  should  stir  up  the  feelings  of 
the  Indians  against  the  Spaniards,  which  is  done;  but  the  greatest 
pains  are  always  taken  that  nothing  shall  be  done  openly  and  by 
way  of  claim  on  the  part  of  the  Dutch, 

In  considering  the  question  what,  if  any,  political  control  was 
exercised  in  Guayana  by  the  Dutch  colony  of  Essequibo,  we  will 
consider,  as  in  the  case  of  settlements,  four  separate  localities, 
namely : 

(1)  Essequibo. 

(2)  Pomeroon. 

(3)  Interior  Territory. 

(4)  Coast  Territory. 

(1.)  Essequibo. 

It  is  freely  admitted  that,  within  the  boundaries  which  have 
already,  in  considering  the  question  of  settlement,  been  deter- 
mined for  the  Essequibo  plantations,  namely,  along  the  banks  of 
that  river  and  on  the  Cuyuni  and  Massaruni  as  far  as  the  falls  of 
the  latter,  as  well  as  to  Demerara  and  other  settlements  on  the 
east,  an  active  and  complete  political  control  was  maintained  by 


POLITICAL  CONTROL.  477 

the  Dutch,  not  only  during  the  period  of  fifty  years,  but  during 
the  whole  period  of  their  occupation. 

The  only  point  to  which  attention  need  again  here  be  directed 
is  that  the  boundaries  of  political  control,  as  well  as  the  boundaries 
of  settlement,  were  definitely  fixed  by  the  limits  of  the  Essequibo 
River  itself  and,  on  its  two  tributaries,  by  the  falls,  which  made 
an  absolute  barrier  to  navigation.     They  formed  a  barrier  to  con- 
trol for  the  same  reason  that  they  formed  a  barrier -to  settlement, 
for  in  this  case  settlement  and  control  were  coterminous.     The 
I  meridian  of  59°  west,  therefore,  which  has  been  already  referred  to 
as  marking  with  geographical  exactness  a  point  well  outside  the 
limits  of  settlement,  may  also  be  referred  to  as   marking  with 
exactness  a  point  equally  far  outside  the  limits  of  political  control. 
During  a  great  part  of  its  history  the  condition  of  the  colony 
of  Essequibo  was  such  that  it  had  neither  the  will  nor  the  power 
Ito  extend  its  control  beyond  these  limits.     Its  weakness  and  the 
1  weakness  of  its  garrison  area  matter  of  constant  complaint  on 
fthe  part  of  the  Director- General  during  this  whole  period.    Thus, 
he  reports  to  the  Company,  September  2,  1754:  (V.  C.  II,  112-13): 

"This  being  so  (and  I  fear  it  is  only  too  certiiin),  what  is  to  come  of 
f  t,  or  what  shall  I  do  ?     With  the  small  number  of  soldiers  I  cannot  repel 

he  least  aggression  in  those  quarters.  It  is  even  impossible  for  me 
)  'however  necessary  at  this  conjuncture)  to  detach  eight  or  ten  men  to  garri- 
l  on  and  defend  as  far  as  possible  the  post  of  Moruca,  which  will,  I 
\  p&v,  see  trouble.  All  that  I  can  do  is,  with  the  aid  of  the  Carib  na- 
1  iiou,  whose  flight  from  Barimi  I  daily  expect,  to  cause  all  possible 
Ijindrance  to  the  undertaking;  but   then  I  should  want   ammunition   and 

«3od  and  have  none  of  eitheri" 

On  October  11,  1754,  the  Secretary  in  Essequibo,  Spoors,  re- 

|orts(V.  C.  II,  111): 

"  There  being  on  hand  not  a  grain  of  powder,  except  what  you  sent 
If  the  Essequeehsche  Vriendschap,  a  barque  was  hired  and  sent  to  Bar- 
|ados  for  powder." 

On  September  1,  1759,  Storm  reports  (V.  0.  II,  137)  that  he 
buld  be  able,  if  '^  honored  with  your  orders  and  only  provided 


478  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

with  some  reinforcements,  both  in  soldiers  and  in  powder  and 
arms,  to  procure  proper  satisfaction." 

On  August  28,  1762,  Storm  states  (V.  C.  II,  150-1)  that  tlie 
Postholder  of  Maroco  has  asked  for  reinforcements,  and  says: 

"  The  garrison  being  extraordinarily  weak,  and  finding  myself  compelled 
to  send  at  least  eight  men  to  Demerary,  I  was  unable  to  give  him  any  men, 
but  instructed  him  to  engage  one  or  two  mulattos  for  three  montlis  at 
soldiers'  wages  if  he  could  get  them,  telling  him  that  I  would  provide 
them  with  arms  and  ammunition." 

Two  months  later,  on  November  6,  17(32,  Storms  reports  (V.  C. 
II,  151)  that  the  same  Postholder  "is  staying  up  in  the  bush 
through  fear  of  the  Spaniards,  and  that  he  had  sent  to  the  post 
for  his  belongings."  • 

In  1767,  Storm  reports  (V.  C.  II,  171): 

"  Therefore  the  reinforcement  of  these  two  Posts,  Cujoeny  and  Maroco, 
becoming  a  matter  of  greater  necessity  every  day  (there  being,  indeed, 
periculuin  in  mora),  I  hope  that  some  good  soldiers,  and  especially  Protest- 
ants, will  be  sent  by  the  Laurens  en  Maria." 

In  the  same  year,  at  the  time  of  the  negro  insurrection,  Heuvel 
the  Commandeur  in  Demerara,  a  part  of  the  Essequibo  colony,  re- 
ports (V.  C.  II,  174): 

"I  fear  for  the  day  after  to-morrow;  no  resolution  will  be  eunic  to 
without  disputes,  because  I  have  heard  from  outside  sources  that  I  shall  be 
sore  put  to  it,  and  placed  in  great  difficulties  how  and  in  what  manner  I 
shall  be  able  to  protect  the  upper  portion  of  this  river;  the  citizens  are 
unwilling  to  go  on  commando,  asking  why  they  should  pay  an  annual  poll- 
tax  and  duties,  &c.,  if  they  have  to  defend  themselves.  I  can  send  no  sol- 
diers because  I  have  only  10  men,  with  which  I  have  to  guard  two  posts 
and  I  am,  moreover,  destitute  of  all  that  a  soldier  requires  when  he  goes 
out  on  commando,  I  hope  the  Caraibans  will  be  successful  in  their  under- 
takings, otherwise  it  looks  v.ery  black  for  this  river,  for  what  can  we  ex- 
pect from  unwilling  citizens  in  time  of  danger?  Nothing  but  great  dis- 
order and  confusion;  in  addition  to  this  there  is  a  lack  of  everything,  and 
even  in  the  storehouses  of  your  lordships.  Not  six  weeks  ago  I  was 
obliged  to  buy  nine  and  a  half  casks  of  bacon  for  the  monthly  rations, 
there  being  no  meat  either  in  Essequibo  or  here." 


POLITICAL  CONTROL.  479 

All  this  time  the  Director- General  wasaskiug  the  Company  for 
reinforcements  and  praying  for  Germans  or  Dutchmen.  He  com- 
plained that  the  Company  sent  him  only  Frenchmen,  and  that  the 
French,  being  Roman  Catholics,  sympathized  with  the  Spaniards 
to  such  an  extent  that  no  reliance  could  be  placed  upon  them,  and 
that  they  deserted  on  the  first  opportunity.  In  1768  when  a  ship 
arrived  with  recruits,  the  Commandeur  informed  Storm  of  their 
arrival  in  these  words  (V.  C.  II,  175): 

**  There  are  twelve  soldiers  on  board  who  are  again  good  recruits  for 
Orinocque  because  they  are  nearly  all  French.'' 

And  Heuvel,  in  Demernra,  reports  of  the  same  detachment 

(A?.): 

•'The  others  are  all  French  deserters,  so  that  I  conclude  that  your 
lordships  have  been  scandalously  deceived  by  the  recruiting  agents,  who 
me  infamous  scoundrels." 

On  June  1,  in  the  same  year.  Storm  himself  complains  of  this 
fact,  and  says  (V.-  C.  II,  177): 

"This  ties  my  hands  completely,  and  nothing  can  be  done  at  the  Posts, 
wliich  are  daily  exposed  to  pillage." 

He  adds: 

"  The  proximity  of  the  Spaniards  is  a  standing  danger  of  desertion,  and 
if  the  opportunity  were  embraced  by  many  at  once  it  would  have  fatal 
results  for  some  plantations.  This  was  very  much  feared  when  those  seven 
deserted  together,  and  we  do  not  dare  to  send  anyone  after  them,  not  only 
on  account  of  the  smallness  of  our  numbers,  but  because  it  is  feared  that 
those  who  are  sent  would  join  the  runaways,  especially  if  they  have  a  good 
boat  and  provisions." 

In  November  of  the  same  year,  Storm  reports  to  the  Company 
(V.  C.  II,  179)  that  four  of  the  French  soldiers  have  run  away 
from  the  fort  at  Orinocque,  "  as  I  had  expected,"  and  he  adds: 

"  The  Commander  of  Demerary  made  a  very  good  guess  when  he  wrote 
ito  me  on  the  arrival  of  the  last  transport,  '  There  are  again  some  good 
jrecruits  for  Orinocque.'  In  this  way  they  will  not  require  any  recruits  from 
jEurope,  if  they  are  so  well  provided  by  us. 

"  This  matter  is  really  getting  more  dangerous  for  this  colony  every 
iday,  because  the  rascals  are  employed  upon  the  so-called  coast-guards  and 


480  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

privateers  of  which  I  wrote  in  my  last  letter,  and  it  has  been  reported  to  ns 
by  Spaniards  themselves  that  the  aforesaid  deserters  openly  threaten  that 
they  will  not  only  make  a  raid  upon  the  Post  in  Maroco,  but  that  they  will 
also  pay  a  visit  to  a  few  of  the  lowest  plantations." 

In  17C9,  Storm,  in  a  report  to  the  Company  (V,  C.  II,  184), 
after  describing  the  various  captures  and  confiscations  made  by 
the  Spaniards  in  Barima  and  the  alarm  consequent  thereupon, 
asks:  "  What  can  I  do  with  such  a  small  garrison?  The  burghers 
are  not  yet  ready  for  service." 

In  May,  1769,  Storm  again  reports  to  the  Company  (V.  C  II, 
190-1)  the  acts  of  the  Spaniards  in  Barima;  that  they  had  at- 
tacked the  Caribs  and  captured  several  of  them  and  carried  them 
ofiF,  and  that  they  were  making  preparations  to  come  to  Poni- 
eroom  and  proposed  to  attack  Essequibo  itself.     He  adds: 

"  I  regard  the  latter  as  a  vain  Spanish  boast,  but  they  are  quite  capable 
of  doing  all  the  rest.  Things  have  now  actually  reached  such  a  stage  that 
we  can  return  violence  with  violence,  but  is  it  not  a  sad  thing,  my  lords, 
that  we  have  such  a  weak  garrison  and  not  six  men  among  them  upon 
whom  we  can  place  the  \ei\st  reliance?  To  send  a  small  detachment  of 
twelve  or  sixteen  men  down  would  really  be  to  risquer  le  tout  pour  le  tout, 
for  if  they  were  all  disloyal,  as  is  only  to  be  expected  from  Frenchmen  and 
Catholics,  and  went  over  to  the  Spaniards  all  would  be  lost,  because  not 
the  least  reliance  is  to  be  placed  upon  the  citizens."' 

In  July,  17(59,  Storm  again  reports  (V.  C.  II,  197): 

"  But  we  do  not  as  yet  think  it  advisable  to  use  direct  rct:iliation,  for  more 
than  one  reason,  but  especially  on  account  of  the  weakness  of  the  garrison, 
which  it  has  been  absolutely  impossible  to  strengthen  by  this  ship." 

At  this  time  the  garrison  of  Essequibo,  Pomeroon,  Demorara 
and  Mahaicony  numbered  39  men  (V.  C.  II,  207). 

In  1772,  matters  were  so  serious  that,  on  August  29,  Storm  de- 
termined upon  the  unusual  course  of  writing  to  the  Stadtholder 
himself,  and  refers  to  his  action  in  a  report  to  the  Company  (V.  C. 
II,  220),  saying: 

"  The  very  dangerous  condition  of  the  Colony,  which  has  been  and  still 
is  on  the  brink  of  total  ruin,  compels  me  to  report  the  same  to  His  Serine 


i 


POLITICAL  CONTROL.  481 


Highness  as  speedily  as  possible,  which  despatch  being  enclosed,  I  take  the 
liberty  of  humbly  requesting  your  lordships  to  forward  it  to  him  at  once." 

Of  the  unfaithfulness  of  the  garrison,  small  as  it  was,  the  Di- 
rector-General, Trotz,  says  (V.  C.  II,  234),  in  1778,  in  a  repoit  to 
the  Company: 

"  2d.  Is  the  Commandant  so  firmly  assured  of  the  loyalty  of  his  soldiers 
as  to  plant  a  command  at  so  great  a  distance  and  on  so  slippery  a  route  to 
Orinoco — [soldiers]  whom  for  the  most  part  he  is  now  forced  to  guard  at 
night  at  the  fort  by  his  few  trusty  soldiers  in  order  that  they  may  not 
desert? " 

I        In  1802  the  condition  of  the  defences  of  Essequibo  is  thus  de- 
!  scribed  (V.  0.  II,  253) : 

"In  the  river  of  Essequibo,  on  Flag  Island  (the  seat  of  the  administra- 
tion and  of  the  oflBcials  of  that  colony ;  for  the  rest,  a  small  barren  patch 
of  ground,  on  which  there  is  not  a  single  plantation),  there  exists  an  old, 
i  rickety  fort,  named  Zelandia,  which  has  not  been  kept  in  repair  in  order 
!  not  to  waste  money  unnecessarily ;  it  serves  only  to  hoist  the  fl;ig  there 
when  ships  are  sighted  which  wish  to  go  up  the  river,  and  to  lock  up  crim- 
i  inal  negroes  in.     On  the  point  of  that  island  is  placed  a  small  battery  of 
I  about  twenty  rusty  iron  guns,  which,  without  carriages  or  rollers,  are  lying 
on  logs  and  stones  and  at  most  are  fit  to  make  the  flag  respected  and  to 
fire  salutes. " 

In  the  same  year  the  Governor- General  reports  to  the  Council 

at  home,  of  the  condition  of  the  Moruca  Post  (V.  C.  II,  254): 

"  While  I  am  finishing  this  letter,  the  Postholder  of  the  Post  Moruca 
,3omes  to  report  that  the  detachment  for  that  post  arrived  there  three  days 
jago,  but  that  everything  is  in  ruins,  and  that  the  battery  cannot  stand  for 
ux  weeks  more ;  that  an  entirely  new  dike  of  some  sort  must  be  made  there 
lind  all  the  buildings  set  back ;  that  the  few  cannons  found  there  are  lying 
llat  on  the  ground ;  that  the  gun-carriages  are  rotten,  and  that  the  English 
have  cut  and  slashed  everything  to  pieces  ;  in  a  word,  that  things  are  in  a 
lopeless  state." 

In  a  condition  of  affairs  such  as  has  been  described  above,  last- 
ng  for  half  a  century,  what  could  the  Colonial  authorities  of 
Essequibo  be  expected  to  do  in  the  way  of  maintaining  efficient 


482  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

The  West  India  Company  never  desired  to  exercise  political 
control  west  of  the  Cuyuni  falls,  in  the  interior,  or  of  the  Moruka, 
on  the  coast,  as  is  shown  repeatedly  by  their  instructions  to  the 
Commandeur  or  the  Director- General;  had  they  desired  to  do  so 
they  would  have  provided  a  sufficient  garrison,  and  paid  some 
heed  to  the  Director- General's  complaints  of  the  disloyalty  of  their 
soldiers  and  the  incompetency  of  their  employees. 

(2.)   POMEROON. 

Although  the  settlement  of  this  region  was  entirely  confined 
to  the  Pomeroon  River,  the  question  of  political  control  must  be 
considered  in  reference  to  the  Moruca  as  well,  which  empties  into 
the  sea  two  or  three  miles  to  the  westward,  because  the  post  of 
Pomeroon  was  succeeded  by  the  post  of  Moruca. 

If  we  should  admit  that,  as  far  as  the  actual  settlements  on 
the  Pomeroon  are  concerned- that  from  1658  to  1665,  founded 
by  the  three  Zeeland  cities  and  destroyed  by  the  English,  and 
that  from  1686  to  1689,  established  by  Jacob  de  Jonge  and 
destroyed,  after  three  years'  existence,  by  the  French —political 
control  was  complete  during  the  existence  of  the  settlements,  the 
question  remains  whether  the  maintenance  of  the  four  succes- 
sive posts  constitutes  continuous  political  control. 

The  post  on  the  Pomeroon,  including  therein  its  successors  ou 
the  Wacupo  and  the  Moruca,  was  of  a  different  character  from 
the  so-called  posts  that  had  a  fitful  and  fragmentary  existence  in 
the  valley  of  the  Cuyuni.  It  was  regarded  from  the  first  as  a 
military  outpost,  as  a  defensive  position  placed  upon  the  frontier 
of  the  colony  for  the  purpose  of  checking  hostile  incursions  inta 
the  Dutch  territory. 

The  post  had  also  another  of  the  essential  and  inherent  attri-^ 
butes  of  a  frontier  post.     It  constituted  a  port  of  entry  for  the 
Orinoco  trade,  which   followed  the  interior  route  through   tht 
Barima  and  Waiiii.    All  this  trade  had  to  pass  the  post  at  Moruca 


POLITICAL  CONTROL.  483 

and  this  post  necessarily  became  the  custom-house  of  the  colony 
upon  that  side. 

These  two  facts  distinguish  the  post  of  Moruca  from  all  others. 
The  history  of  the  post  shows  its  character  as  marking  the 
boundary  of  Dutch  territory  and  its  employment  for  defence  and 
for  the  collection  of  the  customs  revenue.  The  Commandeur, 
D'Heere,  in  recommending  the  removal  of  the  post  from 
Wacupo  to  Moruca,  in  1726,  referred  to  both  of  these  functions 
when  he  said  that  "  knowing  that  the  said  Post  lies  far  out  of  the 
ordinary  course  of  boats  which  come  hither  through  the  inland 
waters,"  therefore,  "it  was  his  intention  to  choose  a  fit  place  in 
the  river  of  Marocco  to  which  he  might  transplant  the  house  and 
Post,  since  all  vessels  which  come  through  the  inland  waters 
must  pass  that  way,"  and  in  December  of  the  same  year  the  Court 
of  Policy  had  the  same  fact  in  mind  when  it  decided  "  that  the 
I  fittest  place"  for  the  post  was  at  the  landing  where  those  fetching 
horses  coming  from  the  Orinoco  usually  make  a  stop,  "it  being 
possible  to  build  a  house  there  so  close  to  the  river  side  that  a 
hand  grenade  can  be  thrown  into  the  boats,  the  river  being  at  its 
narrowest  there  "  (V.  C.  II,  80). 

In  May,  1728  (V.  C.  II,  82),  the  Court  of  Policy  having  learned 
from  the  Outlier  of  the  seizure  by  the  Orinoco  Spaniards  of  a 
Surinam  fishing  vessel,  and  hearing  of  the  probabiHty  of  a  war 
i  between  Holland  and  Spain,  "  resolved  to  reinforce  the  aforesaid 
Post  of  Wacquepo"  and  to  direct  Jan  Batiste,  the  Outlier,  to 
keep  the  necessary  lookouts,  "  so  that  "  they  might  "  receive  the 
earliest  information  in  case  the  Spaniards  should  send  any  armed 
vessels  to  this  Colony,"  and  the  Outlier,  in  case  the  post  should  be 
attacked,  was  directed  "to  defend  himself  to  the  utmost."  The 
soldiers  were  accordingly  sent,  together  with  these  instructions. 
In  accordance  with  its  true  character,  it  appears  from  theOrd- 
Qce  Report  to  the  Company  in  1731  that  the  post  was  equipped 
iwith  four  cannon,  two  two-pounders  and  two  one-pounders. 

In  further  confirmation  of  the  character  which  distinguished 


484  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

this  post  is  a  statement  of  the  Commandeur,  in  a  report  to 
the  Company  in  1737,  in  which  he  had  occasion  to  notice  the 
fact  that  the  post  of  Wacupo  and  Moruca,  formerly  an  import- 
ant trading  place  for  annatto,  "  has  these  last  years  fallen  off  in 
this  business";  and  he  adds:  "  While  I  see  no  way  of  changing 
this,  we  must,  nevertheless,  keep  up  this  post,  because  it  was 
established  for  the  maintenance  of  your  frontier  stretching  towarc 
the  Orinoco"  (V.  C.  II,  89). 

Its  character  was  also  recognized  by  the  Spanish  colonial 
authorities.  In  1747  the  Spanish  Governor,  in  speaking  of 
Moruca,  describes  it  as  *'  the  stronghold  called  the  Post,  which 
the  Dutch  of  Esquivo  maintain  with  three  men  and  two  small 
cannons  "  (V.  C.  II,  297). 

In  1760,  in  consequence  of  Spanish  threats,  the  post  at  Moruca 
was  again  reinforced. 

Finally,  in  1779,  when  it  was  decided  to  move  the  post  lowei 
down  the  river,  it  was  put  on  a  distinctly  military  footing.  Ifc 
was  to  be  equipped  with  four  or  five  guns. 

In  1785  it  was  put  under  an  experienced  soldier  as  Command- 
ant, and  from  that  time  on  it  retained  its  military  character,  al- 
though still  occupied,  as  before,  by  a  civil  official. 

The  post  was  also  a  custom-house.  In  1707  the  Commandeur 
proposed  the  laying  of  a  toll  in  the  rivers  Moruca  and  Pomeroon 
on  boats,  balsam,  Indian  slaves  and  cacao  brought  in  from  the  side 
of  the  Orinoco  through  this  passage  by  the  traders  of  Berbice. 
In  1726,  the  plan  to  put  the  post  "  at  the  landing  where  those 
fetching  horses  coming  from  the  Orinoco  into  the  River  Moruca 
usually  make  a  stop,"  evidently  contemplates  a  custom-house  in- 
spection. Afterwards  duties  were  levied  on  articles  imported 
into  the  colony,  and  they  were  collected  by  the  Outlier  at 
Pomeroon  or  Moruca  as  a  part  of  his  regular  duties.  Thus, 
the  instructions  of  Director-General  Storm  of  October  7,  1767, 
state  in  terms  among  these  duties: 


POLITICAL   CONTROL.  485 

"  7.  From  the  Spaniards  ariving  with  tobacco,  etc.,  he  shall  demand 
five  per  cent,  import  duty,  and  shall  deliver  the  amount  here." 

The  evidence  is,  therefore,  conclusive  that  the  post  at  Moruca 
was  established  for  two  purposes:  (1)  the  defense  of  the  frontier, 
and  (2)  the  collection  of  duties  at  the  frontier  on  articles  imported 
into  the  territory. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  political  control,  such  as  it  was,  which 
is  indicated  by  the  history  of  the  posts,  was  not  without  ques- 
tion on  the  part  of  Spain,  who  carried  her  control  of  Barinia  up 
!    to  the  very  post  of  Moruca,  frequently  threatening  the  latter,  and 

I  capturing  Indians  in  its  immediate  neighborhood. 

The  results  of  these  expeditions  were  so  complete  that  the 
Posth older  complained  that  "there  is  no  longer  an  Indian  to  be 
found  in  these  parts." 

The  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  the  history  of  the  Pomeroon 
and  Moruca  on  the  question  of  political  control  is  that,  while  a 
certain  amount  of  control  was  exercised  at  the  posts,  by  means  of 
the  military  and  fiscal  duties  of  these  pos>ts,  it  was  a  control  which 
j  the  Spanish  Government  did  not  recognize  and  against  which  it 
t  repeatedly  made  a  forcible  resistance,  even  to  the  extent  of  re- 
moving from  its  neighborhood  the  entire  Indian  population,  upon 
which  it  depended  both  for  traffic  and  for  auxiliary  defense. 

One  thing,  however,  is  clearly  established   by  the  history  of 

I I  these  posts;  that  the  Dutch  themselves  considered  the  advanced 

*  point  at   which   they   were  situated   as    the    frontier    of    their 
i  I  territory,  and  that  the  uses  to  which  they  were  put  were  such  as 

•  are  appropriate  only  to  the  frontier. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  if  it  should  be  decided  that  political  con- 
j|  trol  was  maintained  by  the  Dutch  for  the  requisite  period  at 
ifj  the  Pomeroon,  and  that  this  control  was  sufficient  to  create 
I  adverse  holding,  the  boundary  of  this  control  could  not  lie  fur- 
ij  ther  west  than  the  same  meridian  which  has  been  already  referred 
,ito,  namely,  the  meridian  of  69°  West,  upon  the  eastern  side  of 
which  is  included  a  somewhat  greater  extent  of  territory  than  that 


486  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

which  by  any  possible  examination  of  the  history  of  the  posts  can 
be  found  to  have  been  controlled  in  any  degree  by  the  Dutch  in 
this  district. 

(3.)  Interior  Territory. 

In  the  interior,  meaning  thereby  the  territory  south  of  the 
dividing  mountain  range  and  west  of  the  Cuyuni  falls  as  far  as  the 
extreme  limit  of  the  British  claim,  near  the  Orinoco,  the  question 
to  be  considered  is  what  acts  of  political  control  were  performed 
by  the  Dutch  between  1648  and  1814.  ^ 

The  evidence  shows  that  three  so-called  ''posts"  were  main- i] 

h 

tained  during  fiagments  of  this  period,  namely:  | 

First,  at  Quive-Kuru,  fifteen  hours,  or  forty-five  miles,  west  of  ^ 

the  Cuyuni  falls,  from  1Y55  to  1768.  ;j 

Second,  at  a  lower  point  on  the  river,  from  1767  to  1769;  or  from  j 

f 

ni  1706,  if  it  is  considered  that  the  post  was  established  in  that! 
year,  although  its  existence  was  of  the  feeblest  description. 

Third,  still  further  down  the  river,  and  near  the  lower  falls,  be-| 
tween  1769  and  1772. 

The  post  of  1703,  which  was  clearly  never  established,  may  be 
thrown  out  of  consideration. 

This  is  all,  even  of  a  quasi-political  character,  to  be  found  dur- 
ing the  history  of  the  Dutch  colony  of  Essequibo,  lasting  one  hun- 
dred and  sixty-six   years,— the  maintenance  of  a  station  at  one 
point  or  another  during  an   aggregate  period  of  nine  years,  and 
these  years  not  continuous.     These  are  the  only  attempts  to  main-^ 
tain  even  a  trading  station  by  an  employee  of  the  Company  in  this 
immense  territory.     For  a  period  of  one  hundred  and  seven  years  ; 
after  the  Treaty  of  Munster  nothing  whatever  was  done.     Then  \ 
a  post  existed  for  three  years  at  Quive-Kuru;  then  came  another  * 
interval  of  eight  years,  after  which  for  six  years  there  were  posts  i 
a  little  above  the   falls;  then,   for  a  period  of  forty-two  years,  - 
nothing.  ' 


POLITICAL  CONTROL.  487 

Assuming,  in  the  first  place,  that  these  posts  could  be  consid- 
ered as  in  any  respect  a  seat  of  government  in  the  interior  from 
which  political  control  of  a  district  was  exercised,  which  is  denied, 
they  fail  to  come  within  the  fifty  years'  rule. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  in  1758  the  post  was  brought  to  an  end, 
and  the  political  control,  if  any,  represented  by  it  was  inter- 
rupted. It  was  interrupted  by  the  clearest  and  most  emphatic 
assertion  of  the  rights  of  in  the  forcible  destruction  of  the  post 
and  removal  of  the  occupants. 

Even  supposing,  however,  that  there  had  been  no  interruption 

and  that  the  post  had  continued  from  1755  to  1772,  this  would 

have  been  a  period  of  only  seventeen  years,  and  still  would   have 

i    fallen  far  short  of  the  limits  fixed  by  the  Treaty.     At  the  latter 

year  the  post  was  abandoned. 

There  can  be  no  question  that,  within  the  meaning  of  this  Rule 
of  the  Treaty,  voluntary  abandonment,  as  well  as  forcible  dis- 
possession, puts  an  end  to  political  control.  Nor  was  it  necessary 
that  Spain  should  do  any  act  in  order  to  resume  control. 

When  the  Outlier  at  the  second  post  finally  settled  in  his  hut  in 

1767,  his  actual  influence  on  the  situation  was  so  slight  that,  even  if 

'  the  existence  of  his  so-called  post  was  known  to  the  Spaniards,  it 

could  not  have  inconvenienced  them  in  the  slightest  degree.     Its 

i  evidently  feeble  and  precarious  existence  called  for  no  interference, 

1  and  the  Spanish  authorities  might  well  wait  for  it  to  die  a  natural 

death   and  relieve   them  of  the  necessity  of  hastening   its  end. 

Two  years  later,  when  the  post  was  threatened,  its  occupants  did 

not  wait  for  an  actual  attack,  but  hastily  decamped  to  an  obscure 

refuge  lower  down.     When  the  end  came  by  the  abandonment,  in 

(1772,  of  even  this  nominal  station,  the  Spaniards  were  not  required 

jin  any  way  to  reassert  possession;  their  possession  revived  ipso  facto 

on  the  abandonment,  if  indeed,  it  had  ever  been  interrupted. 

The  evidence  of  the  so-called  "posts  in  Cuyuni "  may,  there- 
^fore,  be  dismissed  as  immaterial  in  this  case,  for  the  reason,  if  for 
no  other,  of  their  short  duration. 


488  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

Apart  from  the  question  of  time,  they  must  also  be  disregarded 
as  evidence  of  political  control.  The  posts  cannot  be  considered 
as  constituting  in  any  sense  an  exercise  of  political  control.  This, 
as  already  explained,  means  the  exercise  of  sovereignty  through 
the  agency  of  political  government.  There  is  no  evidence  that  the 
Outlier  in  Cuyuni,  or  exercised  any  functions  such  as  are  implied 
in  political  control.  He  was  destitute  of  all  the  attributes  of  such 
control.  His  duties  were  merely  the  supervision  of  the  move- 
ments of  the  Dutch  traders  who  might  pass  that  way,  the  pro- 
motion of  trade,  especially  the  slave  trade,  with  the  Indians  and 
the  maintenance  of  friendly  relations,  and  general  duties  of  obser- 
vation and  report.  Thus,  the  instructions  under  which  he  acted 
(B.  C.  II,  168)  were  to  treat  the  Indians  with  kindness,  and  if  they 
asked  his  help  against  other  Indians  to  assist  them  as  far  as  possi- 
ble, to  capture  fugitive  slaves  and  to  assist  the  owners  of  such 
slaves.  In  reference  to  the  Spaniards,  he  was  instructed  to  "  be 
careful  not  to  cause  any  injury  to  be  done  to  the  Spaniards,  who 
are  our  good  friends,  and  in  all  he  will  maintain  good  friendship 
and  correspondence  with  them;  but  at  the  same  time  he  will  be 
most  careful  about  the  said  Spaniards,  and  if  by  chance  they  are 
desirous  of  passing  to  the  River  Cuyuni  or  into  any  territories  of 
our  colony  and  cause  any  inconveniences,  the  chief  of  said  post 
or  guard  shall  thereupon  despatch  a  man  to  the  Governor's  castle 
to  advise  him  thereof," 

These  instructions  are  noticeable  in  several  points. 

In  the  first  place,  they  recognize  the  fact  that  the  interior  terri- 
tory was  frequented  by  Spaniards,  which  disposes  of  the  theory 
that  the  Dutch  were  the  only  white  people  who  traded  and  trav- 
eled there. 

Secondly,  the  fact  is  recognized  that  the  post  on  the  Cuyuni  is 
not  Dutch  territory.  The  instructions  speak  of  the  Spaniards  vvlio 
may  desire  to  pass  "  to  the  Cuyuni  or  into  any  territories  of  our 
colony."  By  the  use  of  the  words  "the  River  Cuyuni,"  the  Dutch 
settlements  below  on  that  river  were  evidently  meant.     There 


POLITICAL  CX)NTROL.  489 

could  be  no  stronger  intimation  that  the  Cujnini  above  the  falls 
was  not  regarded  as  such  territory. 

Finally,  no  authority  was  given  to  the  Outlier  in  reference 
to  the  Spaniards.  If  they  caused  any  inconvenience,  the  Outlier 
was  to  give  notice  to  the  Governor;  and  no  doubt  the  Gov- 
ernor was  apprehensive  tliat  they  might  cause  such  inconveni- 
ence, seeing  that  neither  he  nor  the  Company,  after  years  of 
correspondence  and  investigation,  had  been  able  to  discover  any 
foundation  for  Dutch  title  to  the  territory  .vhere  its  jjost  was  situ- 
ated. The  duty  with  reference  to  the  Spaniards  was  simply  a 
duty  of  observation  and  report,  a  duty  which  the  Outlier 
might  have  performed,  had  it  lieen  for  the  interest  of  the  Dutch 
Government,  at  Santo  Thome  or  in  the  country  beyond  the 
Orinoco.  As  to  tiade,  the  Outlier  was  instructed  to  see  that  the 
traders  had  their  passports,  a  provision  which,  of  course  like  the 
prohibition  of  settlement  in  1766  in  Barima,  applied  s()lely  to  the 
Dutch  colonists,  and  which  would  have  been  inapplicable  to  any- 
body else,  as  nobody  else  carried  a  passport  in  Cuyuni.  The 
Dutch  only  carried  them  because  of  the  restriction  upon  trade, 
!  and  because  when  they  passed  the  lower  falls,  they  left  their  own 
territory  and  entei-ed  foreign  temtory.  The  Spaniards  did  not 
carry  them  because  their  trade  there  was  unrestricted,  and  they 
(Were  on  their  own  territory.  Moreover,  the  express  instructions 
in  reference  to  Spaniards  show  that  this  r^ulation  was  not 
intended  to  apply  to  them*. 

'  The  only  existing  copy  of  the  instmctioos  of  Storm  to  the  Ootlier  in  Cayiini,  dated 
.VoTember  29.  1757,  U  in  the  3p«ai^  translation  which  is  found  among  the  papers  in  refer- 
iaee  to  the  capture  of  the  poet.  This  Spanish  version  is  a  certified  translation  of  the  Dutch 
topj  found  in  the  pusseasioa  of  the  Outlier.  The  copy  as  printed  in  V.  C.  II,  137.  is  Uken 
nroni  British  Bine  Book  No.  3,  p.  248,  and  unfortunately  perpetuates  a  groes  mistranslation 
<r  the  Spanish,  originally  printed  in  the  Blue  Book,  especially  in  reference  to  the  duties  of 
I  he  Outlier  ia  relation  to  the  Spaniards.     It  says : 

**  But  at  the  same  time,  he  will  be  mo9t  careful  not  to  permit  the  said  Spaniards  to  pass  to 
I  be  Rirer  Cuyuni,  if  by  any  chance  they  are  desirous  of  so  doing,  or  in  any  part  of  the 
lerritory  of  our  Coiony :  and  in  case  they  attempt  to  molest  the  official  of  the  said  post  or 
j  '■ard,  he  will  imn>ediately  despatch  a  roan  to  the  Gorernor's  castle  to  adri^e  him  promptly 
I  f  the  same.** 

The  errors  in  translatioa  have  been  corrected  in  the  document  as  published  with  the 
IfMniah  text  in  the  B.  C.  II.  168. 


490  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

There  is  nothing  in  all  of  this  savoring  in  any  degree  of  polit- 
ical control.  The  West  India  Company  was  a  trading  company, 
and  it  required  trade  agents  at  outlying  points.  Even  a  Govern- 
ment  which  does  not  carry  on  trade  for  itself  finds  it  necessary  U 
have  commercial  agents,  residing  in  foreign  countries  to  look  ou 
for  the  interests  of  its  trading  subjects.  Much  more  so  a  Govern 
ment  whose  business  is  trade.  The  Outlier  in  Cuyuni  was  a  Gov 
ernment  agent  in  the  sense  that  he  was  an  employee  of  thi 
Government. 

That  his  powers  and  duties,  though  much  less  extensive  in  thi^ 
direction  than  those  of  a  modern  commercial  agent,  were  exercised 
more  directly  upon  his  fellow-subjects  was  due  to  the  wild  and 
primitive  character  of  the  country.     But  they  did  not  indicate  or 
imply  anything  in  the  nature  of  territorial  claims. 

For  the  second  post  in  Cuyuni  (that  which  was  shortly 
abandoned  in  consequence  of  a  threatened  attack  of  the  Spaniards), 
"  Provisional  instructions  "  were  framed  in  Essequibo  before  the 
creation  of  the  post,  which  were  to  be  replaced  by  other  instruc- 
tions (B.  C.  Ill,  136),  "  later  on,  when  the  post  shall  be  in  order.*' 
Whether  these  provisional  instructions  were  ever  issued  or  not  we 
do  not  know.  They  are  only  found  in  the  Court's  records,  and  there 
is  nothing  to  show,  as  in  the  case  of  the  first  instructions,  that 
the  Postholder  ever  had  them.  They  say  in  reference  to  the 
Spaniards: 

"  He  shall  pay  particular  attention  to  the  actions  of  the  neighboring 
Spaniards,  take  good  care  to  give  them  no  reason  of  complaint,  also  see 
that  they  do  not  surprise  them,  but  keep  a  watchful  eye  on  them,  and 
not  allow  them  on  any  pretext  whatever  to  pass  below  the  Post,  but  in  case 
any  should  be  coming  direct  here  to  send  them  to  the  fort." 

Whether  these  instructions  were  ever  issued  or  not,  one  part  of 
them  was  so  carefully  carried  out  that  as  soon  as  the  "  watchful 
eye  "  of  the  Bylier  Van  Witting,  who  at  that  time  was  in  charge  of 
the  post,  saw  a  prospect  of  the  coming  of  the  Spaniards,  he  pre- 
vented their  surprising  him  by  incontinently  abandoning  the  post. 


POLITICAL  CONTROL.  491 

The  closing  phrase  not  to  allow  them  to  pass   below  the  post, 
"but  in  case  any  should  be  cominji;  direct  here  to  send  them  to 
the  fort,"  is  somewhat  ambiguous.     How   he  could   obey   the  in- 
struction not  to  allow  them  to  pass  and  at  the  same  time,  if  they 
were  coming  to  Essequibo,  to  forward  them  on  their  journey,  it  is 
difficult  to  see.     It  may  have  been  Storm's  intention  when  he  for- 
mulated these  instructions  to  have  some  soldiers  at  the  post,   but 
he  never  carried  out  such    an  intention.     Whatever  may  have 
(  been  the  meaning  of  the  instruction,   certainly  the  two  Byliers, 
Van  Witting  and  Van  Leeuwen,  were  never  in  a  position  to  carry 
,;  it  out.     As  far  as  they  were  concerned,  the  Spaniards  who  passed 
i  that  way  could  be  neither  helped  nor  hindered.     The  only  duties 
''  that  they  performed  in  respect  to  Spaniards  were  to  keep  posted 
as  to  their  movements,  and  as  soon  as  they  found  that  they  were 
coming  to  disappear. 

Nor  was  there  any  political  control  exercised  by  the  colonial 
authorities  generally,  either  apart  from  or  in  connection  with  the 
Postholders.  There  was  not  a  grant  of  land  in  the  whole  terri- 
tory; there  was  not  the  semblance  of  a  settlement;  there  was  not 
an  arrest  of  anybody,  even  of  a  Dutchman,  as  far  as  the  record 
'shows,  much  less  of  a  Spaniard,  or  even  of  an  Indian;  there  was 
not  a  single  case  of  the  trial  of  any  person,  even  of  a  Dutchman, 
who  committed  any  offence  in  this  territory;  there  was  not  a  law 
or  regulation  governing  the  territory  which  was  applicable  to  all 
the  persons  in  the  territory,  or  to  any  persons  as  being  in  the  ter- 
ritory. Though  the  Spaniards  overran  the  district,  even  to  the 
falls  of  the  Cuyuni,  according  to  the  statements  of  the  Director- 
iGeneral  of  Essequibo,  there  was  not  an  attempt  made  to  interfere 
with  them;  and  in  abstaining  from  interference,  the  Director-Gen- 
eral was  acting  both  under  the  letter  and  the  spirit  of  instructions 
from  the  Company.  The  Colony  of  Essequibo  had  many  officials; 
there  were  the  Director-General,  the  Commandeur,  the  Lieuten- 
int,  the  Sergeants,  the  Master  Planters,  the  Secretary,  and  others. 
None  of  these  officials,  during  one  hundred  and  sixty-six  years,  ever 


I 


^02  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

made  a  visit  to,  or  inspection  of,  the  territory  in  question,  or  ever 
even  set  foot  in  it.  The  only  employees  of  the  Colonial  Govern- 
ment that  ever  went  there  were  its  old  negro  slaves  and  other 
itinerants  who  acted  as  traders,  and  during  the  nine  years  of  the 
existence  of  the  three  posts  its  Outliers  and  their  underlings. 

While  the  relation  of  the  Dutch  Colony  with  the  Cuyuni  did 
not  represent  control  in  any  sense,  it  was  peculiarly  lacking  in  all 
that  is  necessary  to  constitute  political  control  of  a  district. 

So  much  has  been  said  about  the  posts,  in  treating  of  alleged 
Dutch  control  in  the  interior,  because  there  is  nothing  else  to 
speak  about.  It  is  manifestly  impossible  to  speak  of  this  control, 
whatever  it  was,  as  in  any  sense  the  control  of  a  district. 

Least  of  all,  was  this  an  exclusive  political  control  of  the  dis- 
trict. The  district  in  question,  bounded  by  what  is  known  as  the 
extreme  British  claim,  comprises  the  Cuyuni-Massaruni  Basin. 
It  is  the  district  which  is  watered  by  those  two  rivers  and  their 
tributaries.  They,  in  turn,  are  tributaries  of  the  Essequibo,  al- 
though the  falls,  during  the  two  centuries  of  occupation  of  Esse- 
quibo, proved  an  all-sufficient  barrier  to  any  colonial  extension 
into  the  territory.  The  claim  of  Great  Britain  to  this  district  is 
what  is  known  as  the  extreme  British  claim. 

The  control  of  this  district  by  the  Dutch  during  one  hundred 
and  sixty-six  years  may  be  summed  up  by  the  occupation  of  two 
men,  with  a  negro  slave  and  a  half-breed  woman,  in  a  palm-leaf 
hut,  at  Quive-Kuru,  some  forty-five  miles  from  the  lowest  fall  of 
the  Cuyuni,  for  a  period  of  three  years,  at  the  end  of  which  time 
the  hut  was  burnt  and  the  party  carried  off  by  Spanish  troops, 
acting  under  the  ordei-s  of  the  Spanish  Governor  of  Guiana;  by  a 
similar  occupation  of  a  couple  of  employees  from  two  to  three 
years  at  a  point  near  the  fall,  whence  they  were  driven  by  a 
threatened  Spanish  attack;  and  finally,  by  a  third  occupation  for 
three  years,  just  above  the  fall,  the  existence  of  the  first  and 
second  posts  being  separated  by  an  interval  of  eight  years. 

Against  these  facts  are  to   be  placed  that   remarkable  move- 


POLITICAL  CONTROL.  493 

ment  which  proceeded  from  the  Spanish  capital  of  Santo  Thome 
and  which,  ia  the  face  of  singular  difficulties,  beginning  as  early 
as  the  i7th  century,  extended  over  a  vast  part  of  this  territory  a 
chain  of  mission  settlements,  until  by  the  close  of  the  next  century 
they  had  reached  a  total  of  more  than  thirty  towns  or  villages, 
numbering  a  population  of  fifteen  or  twenty  thousand  people,  with 
ranches  and  herds  numbering  200,000  head  of  cattle  and  horses; 
and  such  was  still  their  condition  at  the  date  of  the  acquisition  of 
Essequibo  by  Great  Britain.  These  mission  settlements  filled  the 
valleys  of  the  Yuruari  and  the  Curumo  and  their  tributaries. 
The  territory  in  which  they  lay  was  as  much  Spanish  territory  as 
that  in  which  lie  the  cities  of  Barcelona,  Toledo  and  Seville.  The 
Dutch  exercised  no  more  control  in  this  territory  than  they  did 
in  the  three  cities  that  have  been  named. 

The  extraordinary  progress  of  the  Spanish  settlements  was 
achieved  largely  through  the  devotion  of  the  missionaries,  and  in 
spite  of  the  secret  intrigues  among  the  Indians,  by  which  the 
Dutch,  unwilling  to  make  any  open  claim,  sought  to  compass  the 
destruction  of  the  settlements.  Notwithstanding  these  conspira- 
cies against  Spanish  authority  upon  Spanish  territory,  the  settle- 
ments prospered  and  increased,  reclaiming  little  by  little  portions- 
of  the  wilderness  and  bringing  it  under  cultivation.  Beyond  the 
advanced  lines  of  settlement  the  Spanish  uniformly  claimed  the 
entire  Cuyuni  district  and  enforced  their  authority  in  it,  when- 
ever it  was  necessary  to  enforce  it.  Here  they  established  them- 
I  selves  in  the  advanced  settlements  on  the  Wenamu,  the  Mas- 
;  saruni,  and  the  Siparuni.  Their  act  in  the  destruction  of  the 
!  Dutch  post  at  Quive  Kuru  was  as  formal  and  complete  an  assertion 
of  authority  and  control  in  the  territory  as  could  be  made,  and 
was  carried  to  a  point  within  fifty  miles  of  the  Dutch  settlements. 
Beyond  this  assertion  of  authority  it  was  not  necessary  for  them 
to  go.  Nevertheless,  during  the  whole  of  the  century,  they  are 
found,  according  to  the  testimony  of  the  Dutch  Governor  of  Esse- 
quibo, who  took  pains  to  know,  patrolUng  the  whole  district  and 


494  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

exercising  effecti^^e  supervision  and  control  even  to  the  falls  of  the 
Cuyuni. 

The  extraordinary  statement  is  made  in  the  British  Case  (p. 
48)  that  "the  circumstances  attending  this  Spanish  raid  upon  the 
Post  in  Cuyuni  rebut  any  presumption  that  the  Spaniards  were 
acting  in  assertion  of  any  right,"  and  in  support  of  the  statement 
it  is  alleged  that  no  objection  to  the  settlement  had  been  commu- 
nicated to  the  Governor  of  Essequibo,  and  that  "  the  expedition 
was  undertaken  in  secrecy  and  followed  by  a  hurried  retreat." 

It  is  not  a  mere  "presumption"  that  the  Spaniards  were 
"acting  in  assertion  of  any  right"  that  the  British  Case  must 
rebut.  This  question  does  not  depend  on  "presumptions."  The 
instructions  issued  by  the  Commandant  of  Guayana,  aftei*  recit- 
ing that  Dutchmen  with  others  had  established  themselves  in  the 
territory  in  order  to  carry  on  the  slave  trade,  say  that 

"  .  .  .  for  the  purpose  of  putting  a  stop  to  these  prejudicial  troubles, 
and  in  order  that  the  good  intentions  of  His  Majesty  may  be  attained,  by 
preventing  any  extension  of  the  claims  which  the  Dutch  are  every  day 
advancing  further  in  this  part  of  his  dominions,  I  ordain  and  command 
Don  Sautiago  Bonalde  as  Commandant,  and  Don  Luis  Lopez  de  la  Puente 
as  Second,  to  proceed  this  day  to  the  interior,"  etc.  (B.  C.  II,  150). 

This  is  what  is  called  a  "presumption  "  that  the  Spanish  are 
acting  in  assertion  of  a  right,  which  "presumption"  the  British 
Case  claims  is  rebutted  because  notice  had  not  been  given  to  the 
Governor  of  Essequibo  and  because  the  expedition  did  not  send 
ahead  an  envoy  to  inform  the  Dutchmen  of  its  coming. 

The  Spanish  Commandant  was  enforcing  a  claim  of  right. 
He  was  enforcing  it  on  Spanish  soil,  and  he  so  stated  in  the 
orders  to  the  expedition.  Who  ever  heard  of  such  a  proposition 
as  this  advanced  by  the  British  Case?  Who  ever  heard  that  alien 
offenders  upon  the  territory  should  not  be  dealt  with  according 
to  the  territorial  law,  but  that  a  notice  and  a  protest  must  first  be 
sent  to  their  Government?  The  result  of  such  a  protest  would 
have  been  eithei-  nothing  at  all,  or  else  an  interminable  discussion 


POLITICAL  CONTROL.  495 

of  rights,  during  which  the  post  would  have  remained.  There  is 
but  one  way  to  deal  with  an  intrusion  of  this  kind,  and  that  is 
the  way  in  which  the  Commandant,  Ferreras,  dealt  with  it. 
That  the  preparations  where  secret  has  no  bearing  upon  the  case. 
If  they  were  secret,  it  was  in  order  that  the  result  might  be 
accomplished  and  that  the  act  to  be  done  might  have  some  signifi- 
cance. There  was  nothing  secret  about  the  performance  of  the 
act  itself,  or  about  the  participation  in  it  of  the  Spanish 
authorities. 

Secondly,  when  Storm  complained  of  the  act,  not  as  an  inva- 
sion of  Dutch  territorial  rights,  but  simply  as  an  unwarranted 
attack  upon  Dutch  subjects,  the  Governor  of  Cumana  wrote  a 
reply  which  cannot  be  said  to  leave  the  assertion  of  light  a  mat- 
ter of  "presumption."  He  said  (B.  C.  II,  169)— and  this  was 
only  a  few  days  after  the  expedition  returned: 

*'  The  Commandant  of  Guayana  has  forwarded  to  me  ...  a 
letter  which  you  sent  him,  claiming  tlie  two  Dutch  prisoners,  a  negro 
slave  and  a  half-breed  woman  with  her  children,  whom  the  guard  dis- 
patched from  that  fort  seized  in  an  island  of  the  Hiver  Ouyuni,  estab- 
lished there  in  a  house,  and  carrying  on  the  unjust  traffic  of  slavery 
among  the  Indians,  in  the  dominions  of  the  King  my  Sovereign.  As  this 
same  Kiver  Cuyuni  and  all  its  territory  is  included  in  those  dominions,  it 
is  incredible  that  their  High  Mightinesses  the  States-General  should  have 
authorized  you  to  penetrate  into  those  dominions,  and  still  less  to  carry  on 
a  traffic  in  the  persons  of  the  Indians  belonging  to  the  settlements  and 
territories  of  the  Spaniards.  I  therefore  consider  myself  justified  in 
approving  the  conduct  of  this  expedition." 

That  is  a  letter  which  expresses  a  claim  of  territorial  right. 
Compare  it  with  that  of  Storm  to  which  it  is  a  reply,  and  the  dif- 
ference in  the  nature  of  the  claims  will  at  once  be  manifest. 
Compare  it  with  Storm's  application  to  the  Governor  of  Guayana 
when  he  proposed  that  the  latter  should  take  up  the  case  of  the 
toff  ending  Dutch  colonists  in  Barima,  and  the  difference  between 
Dutch  and  Spanish  claims  will  be  still  more  manifest.  Compare 
it,  finally,  with  the  Company's  instructions  to  Storm  as  to  make 


496  ADVERSE  HOIJ)ING. 

no  assertion  of  rights  as  against  the  Spanish,— instructions  that 
were  written  after  nine  years  of  fruitless  investigation  and  cor- 
respondence. 

The  Dutch  in  the  Cuyuni  had  not  only  failed  to  assert  a  claim 
of  right,  but  they  had  distinctly  suppressed  any  such  claim.  The 
instructions  of  the  Company  were  that  the  Governor  was  not  to 
appear  openly  in  any  attempt  to  thwart  the  plans  of  the  Spaniards 
in  extending  their  settlements;  that  he  was  not  to  raise  the  ques- 
tion of  jurisdiction;  in  short,  that  he  was  to  do  what  he  can  to 
stop  them,  but  absolutely  to  avoid  appearing  in  the  matter.  A 
claim  of  right  must  be  open  and  notorious.  The  action  of  the 
Dutch  Company  consisted  in  the  absolute  suppression  of  such  a 
claim,  and  this  alone  is  enough  to  dispose  of  the  question  of  ad- 
verse holding  in  the  Cuyuni. 

In  March,  1769,  Storm  reported  (V,  C.  II,  182): 

"  I  also  gave  orders  that  they  should  he  well  on  their  guard  at  the  Post 
against  surprise  parties  (which,  according  to  all  appearances,  will  very 
probably  be  undertaken  before  long),  and  that  they  were  to  come  and 
report  to  me  as  speedily  as  possible." 

In  May  the  report  is  (V.  C.  II,  189): 

"...  that  the  Post  in  Cajoeny  had  been  attacked  by  the  Spaniards; 
that  Jan  Wittinge  had  been  killed,  and  Van  Leuwen  carried  off." 

They  had  not  been  killed  or  carried  off,  but  had  run  away  to  a 
refuge  nearer  to  Essequibo,  where  one  presently  died,  the  other 
being  shortly  withdrawn. 

From  this  time  on  no  attention  is  paid  by  the  Dutch  to  the 
Cuyuni.  There  is  not  a  suggestion  of  a  claim,  much  less  of  con- 
trol. No  attempt  is  made  to  re-establish  the  post.  There  is  no 
record  of  its  use,  even  for  transit  or  trade.  The  Spaniards  may 
come  and  go  as  they  please  in  it.  The  colony  suffers  enor- 
mous losses  from  runaway  slaves,  but  these  make  their  escape  in 
all  directions,  to  the  south  as  well  as  to  the  west,  and  its  efforts 
are  confined  to  suppressing  the  insurrections  of  those  who  remain 


POLITICAL  CONTROL.  497 

and  endeavoring  to  negotiate  some  kind  of  agreement  with  the 
Spaniards  for  the  restitution  of  the  others. 

The  operations  of  the  Spaniards  throughout  the  length  and 
breadth  of  this  district  were  reported  from  time  to  time  to  the 
Commandeur  at  Essequibo;  and  while  his  reports  cannot  have 
included  all  the  acts  of  occupation  and  control  of  the  Spaniards 
during  this  period,  they  include  so  much,  and  with  such  particu- 
larity of  statement,  as  to  prove  conclusively  the  active  assertions 
of  Spanish  authority  and  dominion  during  this  period  over  the 
entire  territory.  Supplemented  by  later  Spanish  reports,  they 
present  a  long  series  of  facts,  running  through  the  entire  history 
of  this  period  down  to  the  English  occupation  of  Essequibo.  In 
order  to  understand  fully  how  complete  and  all-pervading  this 
control  was,  it  is  necessary  to  summarize  at  this  point  the  con- 
clusive evidence  which  is  presented  by  both  the  parties  in  this 
controversy  upon  the  subject. 

Attention  has  been  already  called  to  the  question  of 
the  Cuyuni  horse  trade  which  arose  at  the  beginning  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  to  the  prohibition  which  the  Spaniards  placed 
upon  this  trade  in  Cuyuni,  and  to  the  admission  of  the  Dutch 
Governor  that  the  territory  was  Spanish  territory  and  his  acqui- 
escence in  the  prohibition  upon  that  distinct  ground,  as  stated  by 
himself.  There  is  no  question  that  upon  this  occasion  Spain  exer- 
cised territorial  dominion  over  the  Cuyuni  valley  and  that  the 
Dutch  recognized  her  territorial  rights  in  that  region. 

During  the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  Spaniards 
were  actively  occupied  in  developing  their  system  of  mission  set- 
tlements on  the  tributaries  of  the  Cuyuni.  The  great  extent  and 
influence  of  the  mission  settlements  in  this  region  has  already  been 
noticed.  They  were  made  under  the  authority  and  direction  of 
the  State,  and  the  Governor  of  the  Province  of  Guayana  exer- 
cised a  constant  supervision  over  them  and  their  necessities. 
Under  the  Royal  direction,  the  territory  had  been  divided  among 
the  different  religious  orders.     The  settlements  with  which  this 


498  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

controversy  has  to  do  were  those  assigned  by  the  State  to  the 
Catalonian  Capuchins. 

The  missions  were  under  the  direct  control  of  the  Governor, 
and  visits  of  inspection  were  made  to  them  from  time  to  time  by 
him.  It  is  enough  to  mention  as  an  illustration  of  these  inspec- 
tions the  visit  of  Governor  Espinosa  de  los  Monteros  in  1743  (V.  C. 
II,  286-294),  in  company  with  the  Prefect  of  the  Missions,  the 
report  of  which  mentions  the  Catalonian  Capuchins  as  having 
been  *'  appointed  by  His  Majesty  for  the  conversion  of  the  Indians 
of  this  Province,"  and  discloses  the  nature  of  the  supervision  exer- 
cised over  the  settlements  by  the  civil,  as  well  as  the  ecclesiastical, 
functionaries,  each  of  whom,  in  their  respective  departments, 
were  invested  with  authority  by  the  Spanish  crown,  and  repre- 
sented and  enforced  the  territorial  dominion  of  Spain. 

Of  the  mission  settlements  so  established  by  the  Catalonian  Ca- 
puchins, several  had  been  founded  and  had  carried  on  a  flourish- 
ing existence  for  a  number  of  years  before  we  hear  any  mention 
of  them  in  the  Dutch  records.  Not  until  1Y46  is  an  allusion  made 
to  them  in  the  voluminous  correspondence  in  the  colony  of  Esse- 
quibo.  In  that  year  Commandeur  Storm  writes  to  the  Company 
to  inform  it  of  a  mission,  together  with  a  small  fort,  erected  by 
the  Spaniards  up  in  Cuyuni  (V.  C.  II,  96),  and  "that  they  were 
busy  making  much  brick  there,  with  the  intention  next  year  to 
found  yet  another  mission  and  fort  some  hours  nearer,  farther 
down  this  river,  [while]  all  the  Indians  coming  away  from  those 
parts,  are  fleeing  this  way  and  praying  for  protection,"  which 
was  doubtless  true,  as  it  was  in  1746  and  1748  that  the  mis- 
sions of  Palmar  and  Miamo  were  established. 

Toward  the  close  of  1748  Storm's  attention  is  again  called  to 
the  Spaniards  in  the  Cuyuni  basin.  He  says,  December  2, 1748 
(V.  C.  II,  101): 

"  The  Spaniards  were  beginning  to  approach  more  and  more  up  in 
Cuyuni." 


I 


POLITICAL   CONTROL.  499 

In  1T50,  on  the  occasion  of  Storm's  visit  to  Holland,  he  said 
(V.  C.  II,  106): 

"  It  is  urgently  necessary  that  the  limits  of  the  Company's  territory  be 
known,  in  order  successfully  to  oppose  the  continual  approach  of  the  neigh- 
boring Spaniards,  who,  if  they  are  not  checked  will  at  last  shut  us  in  on 
all  sides,  and  who  under  pretext  of  establishing  their  missions  are  fortify- 
ing themselves  everywhere.  And,  because  the  limits  are  unknown,  we 
dare  not  openly  oppose  them  as  might  very  easily  be  done,  by  means  of  the 
Carib  nation,  their  sworn  enemies." 

On  Storm's  return,  in  1752,  he  had  to  report  not  only  the  ad- 
vance of  the  missions,  but  the  driving  away  of  the  Indians  in  the 
Cuyuni  territory.     He  said  (V.  C.  II,  109): 

"  The  Spaniards  have  attacked  and  driven  away  the  Oaribs  below  Oro- 
uoque,  and  these  have  all  retreated  to  our  side  "  (that  is,  the  Dutch  side  of 
the  territory). 

In  1755  he  made  his  sixth  appeal  to  be  informed  as  to  the 
boundary,  and  reported  (V.  C.  II,  119),  that  "  they  [the  Spaniards] 
have  now  taken  complete  possession  of  the  creek  Orawary, 
emptying  into  the  Cuyuni,  which  indisputably  is  your  territory  " — 
always  upon  the  theory  that  the  tributaries  of  the  Cuyuni,  as  well 
as  the  Cuyuni  itself,  belonged  to  the  Dutch. 

It  was  at  this  very  time  (1750)  that  the  missions  suffered  from 
the  severest  blow  which  they  had  to  encounter  during  their  whole 
history.  The  correspondence  of  the  Dutch  Commandeur  with  the 
West  India  Company  shows  at  whose  instigation  the  blow  was 
dealt  and  by  what  means  the  attack  was  brought  about.  No 
fouler  act  of  treachery  was  ever  planned  by  a  civilized  Govern- 
ment, and  the  correspondence  reveals  the  entire  scheme  from 
beginning  to  end  in  all  its  naked  deformity. 

But  Storm's  conspiracy  was  not  an  exercise  of  political  control. 
His  secret  mode  of  action  negatived  the  idea  of  political  control; 
even  though  early  in  1750,  three  of  the  most  flourishing  missions, 
Miamo,  Yuruari  and  Curumo  (V.  C.-C.  Ill,  374),  and  later  in  the 
same  year  two  others,  Tupuquen  and  Cumamo  (V.  C.  II,  339), 
were  destroyed  by  the  Caribs.     Most  of  these  were  suqsequently 


I 


500  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

restored,  Miamo  and  Yuruari  as  early  as  1753;  some  not  for 
several  years  later. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  Alva- 
rado,  who  was  a  subordinate  of  Iturriaga  in  the  investigations  for 
the  Spanish  and  Portuguese  Boundary  Commission,  coming  to 
Guiana,  as  he  had,  immediately  after  these  occurrences,  and  while 
the  blackened  ruins  of  the  missions  he  was  to  inspect  were  still 
standing,  should  have  been  so  deeply  impressed  by  these  catas- 
trophes, which  it  was  more  than  suspected  had  been  instigated  by 
the  Dutch,  as  to  have  said,  in  a  report  of  1755  (B.  0.  II,  107)  that 
the  missions  were  "  more  in  the  hands  of  the  Dutch  than  in  those 
of  their  proper  owner." 

The  statement  is  only  important  by  reason  of  the  reference  to 
it  in  the  British  Case,  where  it  is  made,  as  it  were,  a  foundation 
for  a  suggestion  that  in  some  way  or  other  the  political  control  of 
the  Dutch  extended  over  these  missions.  Such  is  obviously  not 
the  meaning  be  conveyed  by  Alvarado,  and  such  a  conclusion  is 
entirely  contradicted  by  the  facts  of  history  as  disclosed  by  both 
Dutch  and  Spanish  authorities. 

The  next  advance  of  the  Spaniards  is  far  more  serious.  This 
is  reported  with  great  detail  in  1756  (V.  C.  II,  121-2),  and  bears 
out  the  prediction  made  several  years  before  and  already  referred 
to,  that  the  Spanish  would  extend  their  settlements  in  a  circle  by 
the  headwaters  of  the  Cuyuni  and  Massaruni.  Three  *'  strong- 
holds "  were  reported  as  having  been  established,  those  on  the 
Wenamu,  the  Massaruni  and  the  Siparuni.  These  settlements  or 
posts  lay  far  to  the  east  of  the  mission  valley. 

It  was  just  about  this  time  that  Storm,  in  his  endeavor  to 
counteract  the  Spanish  control  of  Cuyuni,  set  up  his  feeble  post 
at  Quive-Kuru.  The  attempt  was  unavailing.  In  1758,  as  we 
know,  the  matter  was  reported  by  the  Prefect  of  the  Missions 
to  the  Spanish  Commandant,  and  Captain  Bonalde  was  sent  with 
his  troops  to  repel  the  intrusion,  which  he  accomplished  with 
thoroughness  and  despatch.     No  more  conclusive  evidence  of  the 


1 


POLITICAL  CONTROL.  501 

successful  assertion  of  territorial  dominion  and  habitual  control 

could  be  given.     But  the  matter  does  not  end  here. 

In  the  following  year  Storm  reported  (V.  C.  II,  133)  that  the 

occupation  of  the  Spaniards  continues,    and  suggests  that  the 

conditions  of  affairs  is  such  that 

"  the  Colony  will  be  ruined  immediately  there  is  the  least  misunderstand- 
ing with  Spain.  Your  Lordships  will  therefore  see  that  this  matter  is 
fully  deserving  of  your  attention.  The  Spaniards  continue  to  stay  where 
they  are,  and  to  entrap  and  drive  away  all  the  Caraibans  living  there." 

In  1T60,  speaking  of  the  desertion  of  the  slaves  and  the  im- 
possibility of  checking  it,  Storm  says  (V.  C.  II,  142): 

"  What  I  most  feared  was  that  they  might  take  the  road  through 
Cajoeny  where,  since  the  raid  upon  the  Post  by  the  Spaniards  there  are 
no  more  Indians,  and  there  was  therefore  no  means  of  stopping  them." 

In  a  later  letter,  in  the  same  year,  he  adds  {Id.,  142): 

"  The  road  to  Cajoeny  was  open  to  them,  because  since  the  raid  upon 
the  Post  there  by  the  Spaniards  the  river  has  not  been  occupied,  and  the 
road  to  Orinoco  is  an  open  and  easy  one." 

He  concludes  (7<i.,  143): 

"  To  what  will  this  lead,  your  Lordships?  If  such  acts  of  violence 
are  not  stopped,  what  will  the  results  be?  The  River  Cajoeny  is  still  un- 
guarded, and  presents  an  easy  road  to  fugitive  slaves.  I  have  not  yet 
reestablished  the  Post  there,  always  hoping  that  the  matter  might  receive 
redress  in  Europe.  I  could  not  act  in  the  matter  without  using  violence, 
and  this  I  would  not  do  without  special  orders." 

In  1761  matters  are  growing  worse.  The  Spaniards  have  come 
down  the  Cuyuni  even  to  the  very  borders  of  the  Essequibo  settle- 
ment.    Storm  says  (V.  C.  II,  145): 

"  Everything  in  the  upper  part  of  the  river"  [meaning  the  Essequibo 
KiverJ  "is  in  a  state  of  upset,  the  people  who  live  there  bringing  their  best 
goods  down  the  stream.  This  is  because  a  party  of  Spaniards  and  Spanish 
Indians  in  Cajoeny  have  been  down  to  the  lowest  fall  where  your  Lord- 
ships' indigo  plantation  was  situated,  driving  all  the  Indians  thence,  and 
even,  it  is  said,  having  killed  several.  The  Indians  sent  in  complaint 
upon  complaint.  I  fear  that  bloodshed  and  murder  will  come  of  this 
because  if  they  come  below  the  fall  the  inhabitants  will  surely  shoot  upon 


502  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

them  and  not  allow  them  to  approach,  and  what  will  the  consequences  of 
that  be?" 

In  the  next  year,  1762,  it  appears  from  Storm's  report  (V.  C. 
II,  147)  that  expeditions  of  the  Spaniards  to  the  lowest  fall  of  the 
Cuyimi  have  become  a  regular  practice,  and  that  they  are  keeping 
the  valley  of  that  river  under  such  control  as  to  constitute  an 
effective  military  occupation.     He  says: 

"  They  are  not  yet  quiet,  but  send  detachments  from  time  to  time, 
which  come  down  as  far  as  the  lowest  fall^  close  to  the  dwelling  of  your 
Lordships'  Creoles,  by  which  both  the  settlers  and  our  Indians  are  con- 
tinually being  alarmed,  and  take  refuge  each  time  down  stream.  This  is 
very  annoying.  They  must  have  great  and  important  reasons  to  make 
such  attempts  to  obtain  possession  of  this  branch  of  our  river,  and  I  have 
not  the  least  doubt  that  such  is  the  case,  but  I  hope,  too,  that  your  Lord- 
ships may  find  a  means  of  stopping  them." 

It  is  always  the  lowest  fall  that  is  given  by  Storm  as  the 
boundary  of  the  actual  political  control  of  Spain. 

In  a  later  letter  of  the  same  year  he  renews  these  statements, 
as  follows  (V.  C.  II,  149): 

"  From  the  reports  received  from  the  upper  part  of  the  river,  I  learn 
that  the  Spanish  Indians  of  the  Missions  continue  to  send  out  daily 
patrols  as  far  as  the  great  fall  (just  below  which  your  Lordships'  Creoles 
live) ;  all  the  Oaraibans  have  also  left  that  river,  and  gone  to  live  above 
Essequibo." 

Three  months  later  he  is  almost  in  despair.  He  says  (V.  C.  II, 
151): 

"The  Indians  have  also  informed  me  that  the  Spaniards  up  in 
Cajoeny  are  engaged  in  building  boats.  Where  will  all  this  end,  my 
Lords?  I  fear  that  this  may  lead  to  the  entire  ruin  of  the  Colony  (which 
God  forbid)  unless  rigorous  measures  are  taken.  Our  forbearance  in  the 
matter  of  Cajoeny  makes  them  bolder  and  bolder.  At  the  time  of  that 
occurrence  the  Caraibans  were  full  of  courage  and  ready  for  all  kinds  of 
undertaking ;  now  they  are  all  driven  away  from  there  and  have  retired 
right  up  into  Essequibo." 

In  1763  Storm  reports  (V.  C.  II,  154),  of  the  Cuyuni  that  **  the 

Spaniards  have  driven  away  the  Caraibans  who  lived  there,  and 

who  could  apprehend  and  bring  back  the  runaways." 


POLITICAL  CONTROL.  503 

Enclosed  in  a  letter  of  August,  lT64,  the  Director- General 
sends  to  the  Company  (B.  C.  Ill,  106),  a  treatise  concerning  the 
Company's  trading  places,  in  which  he  describes  at  length  Mahai- 
cony,  Arinda,  Cuyuni  and  Moruca.  He  says  "the  third  post  was 
on  the  River  of  Cuyuni,"  and  he  then  refers  to  the  attack  of  the 
Spaniards  and  the  destruction  of  the  post. 

*'  The  reasons  that  they  had,''  lie  says,  "for  such  unlawful  proceedings 
must  be  best  known  to  themselves,  because  they  cannot  have  the  very  least 
shadow  to  a  claim  of  possession  ;  or  it  must  have  been  the  chimerical  pre- 
tensions of  the  priests  in  these  parts  that  the  whole  of  America  belongs  to 
His  Catholic  Majesty  and  that  all  other  nations  hold  possession  merely 
precario  and  by  permission"  (p.  109). 

In  the  same  report  occurs  (p.  Ill)  a  very  significant  statement 
of  the  Director- General: 

"  If  we  ever  desired  to  follow  the  example  of  the  English  and  French, 
the  posts  of  which  I  have  spoken  would  be  absolutely  necessary  and  indis- 
pensable ;  and  if  this  matter  is  not  taken  in  hand,  our  neighbors  will 
quietly  approach  and  surround  us,  and  finally,  without  exercising  any  vio- 
lence, drive  us  from  the  country.  This  is  what  is  already  beginning  to  be 
observed  ;  and  what  can  we  expect  from  the  numerous  arrivals  of  settlers 
in  Cayenne  and  the  removal  of  Spanish  people  and  plantations  in  Guayana 
so  much  nearer  to  our  boundaries  ?  The  latter  go  to  work  openly,  like  a 
proud  nation;  and  they  can  therefore  be  better  opposed,  an  open  eneiny 
never  being  so  dangerous  as  a  secret  one." 

Evidently  the  Spaniards  did  not  find  it  necessary  to  suppress 
their  claim  of  right,  and  to  make  opposition  "quietly  and  with- 
out appearing  therein." 

In  an  undated  letter  of  the  same  period,  he  says  of  the  Cuyuni 
(V.  C.  II,  157): 

* '  This  river  is  a  tract  of  land  along  which  the  Spaniards  spread  them- 
selves from  year  to  year,  and  gradually  come  closer  by  means  of  their  mis- 
sions, the  small  parties  sent  out  by  them  coming  close  to  the  place  where 
the  Honourable  Company's  indigo  plantation  stood,  and  being  certain 
to  try  and  establish  themselves  if  they  are  not  stopped  in  time." 

Here  again  we  have  Spanish  control  extending  to  the  lowest 
fall. 


50^  ADVERSE  HOLDING.  ; 

In  1764  Storm  is  endeavoring  to  re-establish  his  post,  this  time,  | 
but  he  meets  with  difficulties  from  the  start.     He  says  (V.  0.  II,      ,; 

159):  ; 

"  Whatever  trouble  I  have  taken,  and  whatever  promises  I  have  made, 
I  have  not  been  able  to  get  any  Indians  up  to  the  present  to  aid  me  in  re-  | 
establishing  the  Post  in  Cajoeny,  and  without  their  help  it  cannot  be  | 
done,  because  with  slaves  it  is  not  only  too  costly  but  also  too  dangerous,  , 
80  that  I  am  in  great  difficulties  with  this  work,  and  the  re-establishment  • 
of  that  Post  is,  in  my  opinion,  of  the  greatest  necessity" 

After  eight  years  of  patrolling  and  watching  the  river,  the 
Spaniards  might  fairly  assume  that  no  effort  would  be  made  to     ; 
re-establish  the  Dutch  Post.    Of  the  third  post  it  does  not  appear     ; 
that  they  were  ever  aware.  ; 

In  1765  he  reports  (V.  C.  II,  161):  [ 

".  .  .  that  preparations  are  being  made  to  establish  a  new  mis-  . 
sion  between  Cajoeny  and  Masserouny,  that  is,  in  the  middle  of  our  |; 
land.  il 

"Should  this  happen  we   shall  be  compelled  to  oppose  them  with     r 
violence,  because  the  consequences  of  that  could  only  be  harmful,  and    } 
would  finally  result  in  the  ruin  of  the  Colony.     This  is  certain,  that  so 
long  as  no  satisfaction  is  given  by  the  Court  of  Spain  concerning  the  oc- 
cuTTence  of  the  Post  in  Cajoeny,  the  Spaniards  will  gradually  become    ' 
more  insolent,  and  will  gain  ground  on  us  from  year  to  year." 

Notwithstanding  all  these  reports  on  the  part  of  Storm,  he 
never  opposes  the  Spaniards  with  violence  or  in  any  other  way.  , 

The  old  cause  of  complaint  as  to  the  destruction  of  the  post 
at  Quive-Kuru  still  remains  unsatisfied;  not  only  that,  but  the     ; 
Company's  Creole  who  was  taken  prisoner  at  that  time  is  employed   J ; 
as  smith  at  one  of  the  missions,  and  he  says  (V.  C.  II,  161).  }  I 

**  Is  it  not  hard,  sirs,  that  one  must  look  on  patiently  at  such  robbery  I 
and  endure  it  ?" 

One  cannot  help  feeling  considerable  sympathy  with  Storm  in 
his  anxieties  and  complaints.    The  fact  is,  however,  that  his  course     ' 
of  proceeding  in  opposing  no  resistance  to  the  Spanish  occupation 
and  control  of  the  Cuyuni  basin  down  to  the  falls  was  in  pursu- 
ance of  the  deliberate  purpose  of  the  West  India  Company. 


POLITICAL  CONTROL.  606 

Their  Director-General  fretted  and  chafed  at  inactivity,  but  the 
wiser  and  perhaps  more  conscientious  heads  that  controlled  the 
policy  of  the  colony,  knowing  that  they  had  no  ground  of  right, 
refused  to  permit  any  action  to  be  taken  which  would  bring  on  a 
collision. 

The  point,  however,  with  which  we  are  concerned  here  is  the 
completeness  and  long  duration  of  the  Spanish  control  of  the 
Cuyuni,  of  which  there  had  been  no  interruption  whatever  since 
the  beginning  of  the  century,  when  the  Spaniards  first  asserted 
their  rights  of  territorial  dominion  by  prohibiting  the  Dutch  from 
engaging  in  the  horse  trade  on  their  territory.  So  far  from  this 
dominion  being  interrupted,  it  was  every  year  increased  and 
strengthened. 

The  feeble  efforts  of  Storm  to  oppose  the  territorial  authority 
of  the  Spanish  crown  by  the  second  post  were  as  unsuccessful  as 
those  at  Quive-Kuru.  Even  Dutch  influence  with  the  Indians,  of 
which  so  much  has  been  urged,  has  now  disappeared.  In  June, 
1767,  Storm  had  reported  (V.  C.  II,  lTO-1),  the  post  ready;  but 
he  stated  at  the  same  time 

"  that  the  Indians  are  being  bribed  and  incited  to  such  a  degree  that  they 
are  unwilling  to  do  the  least  thing  for  the  Postholder,  and  that  even 
when  he  orders  the  passing  boats  to  lie  to  to  see  whether  there  are  any  run- 
aways in  them,  they  obstinately  refuse  to  do  so,  and  when  he  threatens 
to  shoot  upon  them  they  reply  that  they  have  hotus  ahd  arroius  with 
which  to  answer." 

In  1769  Storm  reported  (V.  C.  II,  180): 

"  It  is  finished  now,  my  lords;  neither  Postholders  nor  Posts  are  of 
any  use  now.  The  slaves  can  now  proceed  at  their  ease  to  the  Missions 
without  fear  of  being  pursued,  and  we  shall  in  a  short  time  have  entirely 
lost  possession  of  the  river  Cajoeny. " 

It  appears  that  for  all  practical  purposes  the  post  was  absolutely 
useless.  In  March,  1769,  Storm  said  (V.  C.  II,  182)  that 
*'  the  road  for  the  runaways  is  now  quite  open  and  free,  it  being  im- 
possible for  the  Post  in  Cajoeny  to  stop  them,  there  being  a  number  of 
inland  paths;  nor  can  we  be  warned  in  any  way  by  Indians,  there  being  no 
more  of  these  in  that  river.    They  did  begin  to  settle  there  again  when  the 


506  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

post  was  re-established,  but  the  raid  made  by  the  Spaniards  last  year, 
when  a  large  party  of  Indians  were  captured  and  taken  away,  has  filled 
the  rest  with  terror,  and  they  are  gradually  drawing  off." 

In  the  same  month,  a  little  later,  he  said  {id.,  183): 

*'  My  opinion  has  always  been  that  they  would  gradually  acquire  a 
foothold  in  Cayuni,  and  try  to  obtain  the  mastery  of  the  river,  as  they 
now  practically  have  done  at  the  end  of  the  past  year.^' 

By  his  confession,  therefore,  the  Spaniards  have  practical  pos- 
session of  the  river. 

Rumors  now  began  to  reach  the  Governor  of  a  projected  attack 
upon  the  post;  in  fact,  the  valley  of  the  Cuyuni  was  full  of  them. 
Storm,  however,  did  nothing  to  reinforce  it,  having  evidently 
made  up  his  mind  to  leave  the  two  Byliers  to  their  fate.  Other 
rumors  came,  more  precise  in  their  character. 

The  Director-General,  March  23,  1767  (V.  C.  II,  169),  wrote  to 
the  Company  that  his  Creole 

"  had  reported  that  he  had  heard  from  a  few  Indians  that  a  party  of 
Indians  had  been  sent  by  the  Spanish  Mission  to  make  a  raid  upon  the 
I'ost,  and  had  completely  sacked  it,  and  that  he  was  going  to  find  out  how 
true  that  was." 

As  it  turned  out,  no  attack  was  made,  because  none  was 
needed.  The  threat  of  attack  w^as  sufficient.  Before  the  attack 
could  be  made  the  two  Byliers  had  concluded  that  discretion  was 
the  better  part  of  valor  and  had  fled  precipitately,  without  wait- 
ing for  Storm's  permission. 

Their  last  refuge  was  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  Dutch 
frontier  and  in  an  isolated  position  on  an  island  between  the  falls. 
Here  the  Spaniards  did  not  interfere  with  them,  if  indeed  they 
were  aware  of  their  existence.  This  post  was  abandoned  three 
years  later.  While  it  lasted  it  offered  no  opposition  to  the  exercise 
of  Spanish  dominion.  Prom  this  time  on,  the  Dutch  archives 
take  no  further  heed  of  Cuyuni. 

For  the  remaining  period,  the  evidence  must  be  found  in 
Spanish  reports.  These  show  a  continuous  enforcement  of 
political  control. 


POLITICAL  CONTROL.  607 

In  1787  Mariano  de  Cervera  commanded  (V.  C.  II,  446)  an  ex- 
pedition to  the  Cuyuni  against  certain  hostile  Indians,  of  whom 
he  succeeded  in  capturing  a  large  number  as  prisoners. 

The  immediate  supervision  of  the  Cuyuni  valley  was  at  this  time 
in  the  hands  of  the  able  and  intelligent  Adjutant-Major  of  the 
Spanish  forces  in  Guayana,  Lopez  de  la  Puente  (V.  C.  II,  448).    In 

1788,  he  made  an  extended  inspection  of  the  mission  settle- 
ments, from  Alta  Gracia  as  far  as  Cura,  on  the  lower  Yuruari,  in- 
cluding Upata,  Santa  Maria,  Oarapo,  Guascipati,  Tupuquen  and 
Angel  Custodio.  Six  or  seven  leagues  from  Cura  the  new  settle- 
ment of  Tumeremo  had  been  founded  two  years  before,  with  a 
church  and  a  cattle  farm  (V.  C.  II,  457). 

In  the  following  winter,  De  la  Puente  passed  three  months  in 
uyuni.     He  was  there  from  November  7,  1788,  to  February  5, 

1789,  and  a  minute  journal  of  this  expedition  is  preserved  to  us 
(V.  C.  II,  462-467).  In  the  course  of  his  operations,  he  appre- 
hended an  Indian  chief  named  Manuyari,  who  was  living  on  the 
borders  of  the  Dutch  colony  at  the  falls  of  Cuyuni,  which  here 
again  appears  as  the  frontier.  Manuyari  was  a  scout  in  the 
employ  of  the  Dutch;  and  partly  on  this  account  and  partly 
because  of  acts  which  he  had  committed  in  the  Cuyuni  valley 
against  the  Indians  living  there,  the  Spanish  authorities  desired 
to  take  him  into  custody.  He  had  also  stolen  an  Indian  woman 
from  Panapana.  The  expedition  had  four  boats  and  a  corre- 
sponding force  of  troops.  It  proceeded  down  the  Yururari  into 
the  Cuyuni,  passed  the  mouth  of  the  Curumo  and  continued  on 
its  journey,  until  it  reached  the  Camaria  rapids,  the  head  of  the 
lowest  fall  on  the  Cuyuni.  Here  a  detachment  captured  Manuyari, 
with  the  woman  whom  he  had  stolen  and  ten  other  prisoners. 

Immediately  after  de  la  Puente's  return  the  Governor  of 
Guayana,  Marmion,  decided  to  establish  a  village  and  fort  at  the 
mouth  of  the  Curumo,  where  it  empties  into  the  Cuyuni,  and  on 
the  southern  or  right  bank  of  the  latter  river  (V.  C.  II,  471).  His 
recommendation  received  the  royal  approval  (V.  C.  II,  478),  and 


508  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

in  1792-3  the  fort  was  built  and  occupied,  and  a  sergeant  placed 
in  command  of  the  garrison  (V.  C.  II,  479). 

From  this  time  on  the  fort  in  Cuyuni  was  regularly  main- 
tained.   No  notice  was  taken  of  its  establishment  by  the  Dutch. 

In  1800  the  report  of  the  garrison  at  Guayana,  numbering 
357  soldiers,  showed  the  force  still  at  Cuyuni  in  command  of  a 
sergeant  (V.  C.  II,  485),  with  a  detachment  of  troops  as  a  garri- 
son, and  a  similar  return  shows  the  same  condition  in  1809  (V. 
C.  II,  486).  So  matters  continued  until  the  war  of  independence 
broke  out  in  Venezuela. 

The  history  of  Spanish  control  in  the  Cuyuni-Massaruni  basin 
has  now  been  traced  during  the  whole  period  of  the  Dutch  occu- 
pation of  Essequibo.  Side  by  side  with  this  history  we  have  the 
history  of  Dutch  movements  during  the  same  period.  The  latter 
were  not  in  any  sense  attempts  at  control.  There  were  no  pre- 
tensions to  territorial  rights.  The  Home  Government  forbade  the 
making  of  any  such  claims.  It  was  the  hope  of  the  West  India 
Company  that  this  district  might  be  neglected  by  the  Spaniards; 
that  it  might  attract  the  enterprise  of  the  colonists;  that  the  ad- 
vance of  the  Spaniards  might  be  checked  by  the  Indians,  and  that 
gradually  and  unobserved  the  Dutch  might  succeed  in  obtaining 
some  footing  therein.     In  all  these  hopes  they  were  disappointed. 

Comparing  the  insignificance  of  the  measures  taken  by  the 
Dutch  in  reference  to  the  Cuyuni-Massaruni  basin  with  the  sys- 
tematic policy  pursued  and  carried  out  by  the  Spaniards,  we  find 
that  the  latter  maintained  throughout  the  entire  eighteenth  cen- 
tury close  and  effective  supervision  and  control  over  the  whole  of 
this  territory,  a  large  part  of  which,  certainly  ten  thousand  square 
miles  in  extent,  they  filled  with  populous  and  prosperous  settle- 
ments, which  were  constantly  advancing  further  and  further  into 
the  interior.  All  of  it  they  effectively  guarded.  They  uniformly 
maintained  a  claim  to  the  territory,  and  defined  the  frontier  as  be- 
ing at  the  Essequibo,  exercising  authority  to  the  lowest  fall  of 
Cuyuni.    This  frontier  they  effectively  held. 


POLITICAL   CONTROL.  609 

The  above  facts  effectually  dispose  not  only  of  the  question  of 
exclusive  control  on  the  part  of  the  Dutch,  but  of  control  of  any 
kind  whatever.  From  the  time  when  the  Essequibo  Governor 
submitted  to  the  prohibition  of  trade  in  the  interior  territory,  on 
the  ground  that  the  territory  was  Spanish,  down  to  the  end  of  the 
century,  when  all  reference  to  this  district  disappears  from  the 
Dutch  archives,  the  story  is  one  of  continuous  Spanish  dominion 
and  control,  uninterrupted  by  any  serious  resistance  on  the  part 
of  the  Dutch. 

In  view  of  the  above  facts,  which  are  ^here  narrated  in  the 
very  language  of  the  contemporary  records,  on©  cannot  but  read 
with  astonishment  the  extraordinary  statement  contained  in  the 
British  Case  (p.  32)  that 

**  At  the  time  of  the  Treaty  of  Utrecht  (1714)  the  Dutch  had  estab- 
lished themselves  as  the  masters  of  a  great  part  of  Guiana,  from  various 
positions  on  the  coast  as  far  as  Barima  to  the  Pariacot  Savannah  beyond 
the  River  Cuyuni  in  the  interior  of  the  country,  and  they  were  already 
opening  up  the  higher  reaches  of  the  Essequibo." 

The  grounds  for  this  sweeping  assertion  are  that 

"  Their  plantations  and  settlements  lined  the  banks  of  the  Essequibo, 
Massaruni  and  Cuyuni  for  some  distance  from  the  junction  of  the  three 
rivers.  They  had  established  friendly  relations  with  the  Indian  tribes  of 
the  interior,  who  looked  to  them  as  their  arbiters  in  tribal  disputes,  and 
offered  them  assistance  in  time  of  hostile  attacks." 

Equally  surprising  is  the  following  statement  of  the  British 
Case  (p.  49): 

"The  Spaniards  never  occupied  the  Cuyuni.  It  was  expected  by  the 
Spaniards  that  the  Dutch  would  at  once  reoccupy  the  post.  In  fact  they 
did  formally  reoccupy  the  Cuyuni  with  a  Post  in  1766.  They  would  have 
reoccupied  it  sooner  had  it  not  been  that  all  their  available  energies  were 
temporarily  diverted  to  assisting  in  the  suppression  of  a  negro  revolt  in 
Berbice  While  there  was  no  Post  provisional  arrangements  were  made  for 
watching  the  river." 

As  to  the  statement  of  the  British  Case  that  the  "  Spaniards 
never  occupied  the  Cuyuni,"  reference  need  only  be  made  to  the 
evidence  annexed  to  that  case  which  has  been  quoted  in  the  fore- 
going page. 


510  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

As  to  the  reasons  why  the  Dutch  delayed  in  occupying  the 
post,  these  are  entirely  beside  the  question. 

The  last  statement,  that  "  while  there  was  no  post,  provisional 
arrangements  were  made  for  watching  the  river,"  refers  to  the 
fact  that  one  of  the  Company's  old  Creoles,  Tampoko,  was  di- 
rected to  stay  near  the  lower  falls  and  observe  the  operations  of 
the  Spaniards.  (B.  0.  Ill,  131.)  How  well  he  observed  them,  and 
how  complete  and  extensive  they  were,  the  correspondence  of  the 
Director -General  conclusively  shows;  and  the  fact  that  he  was 
enabled  to  watch  them  at  the  lower  falls  shows  how  extensive 
was  the  patrol  of  the  Spaniards,  and  how  completely  the  falls 
were  regarded  as  the  territorial  frontier. 

The  British  Case  states  (p.  61)  that  the  projected  erection  of  a 
fort  at  Curutno  was  approved  in  1791  by  the  King,  but  that  a 
despatch  by  Marmion  in  October,  1793,  shows  that  the  erection  of 
the  fort  had  not  yet  been  commenced,  and  that  no  part  of  the 
scheme  was  ever  carried  out.  This  last  statement,  that  no  part  of 
the  scheme  was  ever  carried  out,  is  directly  contrary  to  the  fact. 
The  fort,  as  already  stated,  was  built  and  the  garrison  maintained 
there  at  least  as  late  as  1809. 

It  is  inexplicable  that,  in  view  of  the  conclusive  evidence  pre- 
sented, the  British  Case  should  still  deny  the  existence  of  the  fort 
on  the  southern  bank  of  the  Cuyuni  at  the  mouth  of  the  Curumo. 
This  error  in  the  British  Case  is  referred  to  at  p.  66  of  the  Vene- 
zuelan Counter-Case.  The  persistent  error  in  the  note  to  Mar- 
mion's  report  of  1793,  where  the  word  Orinoco  is  substituted 
for  Curumo,  made  it  necessary  to  print  in  the  Appendix  to  the 
Venezuelan  Counter-Case,  vol.  3,  p.  147,  a  photographic  copy  of 
the  original  document,  where  the  name  appears  plainly  as 
Curumo.  The  statement  by  Marmion  in  1793  is  that  **  a  begin- 
ning has  been  made  of  the  foundation  of  the  new  town  nearly  at 
the  point  of  union  of  the  Cuyuni  with  the  Curumo, "  and  the 
existence  of  the  fort  is  beyond  contradiction. 


political  control.  511 

(4.)  Coast  Territory. 

In  the  discussion  of  settlement  in  Barima  reference  was  made 
to  the  presence  of  the  Spaniards  in  this  district  from  a  very  early 
period,  and  it  was  shown  that  long  before  the  Dutch  had  settled 
in  Guiana,  even  as  early  as  the  sixteenth  century,  the  Spaniards 
were  famihar  with  the  region,  were  trading  there  in  Indian  slaves, 
and  were  frequently  passing  back  and  forth  between  Orinoco  and 
Moruka  or  Pomeroon,  whence  they  could  go  by  sea  to  Essequibo 
and  other  points  on  the  coast,  where  they  either  had  settlements 
or  obtained  food  supplies  for  Trinidad  and  Orinoco. 

All  these  facts  belong  to  a  period  of  history  when  the  records 
of  what  was  done  by  individual  traders  are  of  the  most  meager 
description.  Such  was  the  condition  of  affairs  when,  in  1648, 
the  Treaty  of  Munster  confirmed  to  the  Dutch  their  possession 
of  the  trading  post  at  Essequibo.  From  this  time  on  we  have 
the  records  of  that  post,  and  of  the  colony  which  grew  up  around 
it.  These  records  surpass  in  extent  and  fullness,  we  venture  to 
say,  those  of  almost  any  other  colony  in  the  New  World. 

It  may  therefore  be  assumed  that  any  acts  of  political  control, 
or  even  acts  not  implying  such  control,  connected  with  a  general 
movement  of  trade,  or  with  Indian  relations,  of  any  consequence, 
which  were  performed  by  the  Dutch  will  find  a  record  in  the 
Dutch  archives,  and  the  absence  of  such  a  record  shows  that  no 
such  acts  took  place. 

1.  The  Dutch  trade  with  the  natives  did  not  extend  to  Barima. 

While  the  Dutch  from  the  beginning  showed  considerable 
itivity  in  trade  with  the  Indians  of  the  interior,  they  for  a  long 
^ime  showed  none  at  all  in  trade  with  the  Indians  of  the  coast, 
except  on  the  Pomeroon  River,  Here  their  energies  for  the 
feime  being  began  and  ended.  Except  for  a  single  occasion,  in 
1673,  when  Rol  reported  (V.  C.  II,  36)  that  "peace  had  been 
made  between  the  Caribs  in  Barima  and  the  Arawaks,"  "  and  he 


512  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

was  going  to  send  a  boat  after  carap-oil,"  not  an  allusion  is  made 
to  Indian  trade  in  Barima  until  1683. 

Nor,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  did  the  Dutch  ever  carry  on  trade 
with  the  Indians  of  Barima.  This  singular  fact  is  to  be  noted 
throughout  the  whole  history  of  the  Dutch  colony. 

In  1683  Barima  is  by  implication,  but  distinctly,  referred  to  as 
a  place  where  up  to  that  time  the  Dutch  had  had  no  trade. 
When  Beekman,  in  that  year,  tried  to  bring  about  peace  between 
the  warring  tribes  in  Cuyuni,  he  reported  that  they  threatened  to 
go  to  Barima  if  he  interfered  with  them  (V.  C.  II,  44),  And 
early  in  1683,  in  speaking  of  their  repulse  of  his  offer  of  good 
offices,  wares  and  other  inducements,  he  said  that  "  they  meet  you 
with  the  tart  answer  that  they  can  get  plenty  of  these  by  trade  in 
Barima  and  other  places,  which  partly  squares  with  the  truth,  on 
account  of  the  trade  which  the  French  from  the  islands  carry  on 
there." 

It  is  evident  that  Beekman  had  as  yet  been  unsuccessful  in 
establishing  satisfactory  relations  with  the  Indians  of  Barima, 
though  he  had  the  development  of  this  trade  in  mind;  and  it  is 
not  surprising,  therefore,  to  find  in  this  year  and  the  next  peculiar 
attention  directed  by  him  to  Barima  and  peculiar  efiforts  made  by 
him  to  initiate  a  successful  trade  there.  These  efforts  have 
already  been  considered  with  reference  to  settlement.  Here  they 
must  be  discussed  on  their  bearing  on  political  control. 

Thus,  on  December  25,  1683,  he  reports  (V.  C.  II,  45): 

"In  Barima  I  have  had  one  of  the  Company's  servants  take  up  his 
abode,  since  there  is  much  annatto  and  letter-wood  there  and  it  is  close 
by  Pomeroon." 

He  goes  on  to  say : 

**  Recently,  too,  it  has  been  navigated  as  many  as  two  or  three  times 
by  Gabriel  Biscop  and  exploited  with  great  success,  much  to  the  prejudice 
of  the  Company.  I  hope  this  will  meet  your  approval.  That  trade,  both 
there  and  in  Pomeroon,  I  have  forbidden  to  him,  and  to  all  others  as 
well.     I  wish  you  would  take  that  river  also  into  your  possession,  as  lias 


POLITICAL  CONTROL.  513 

provisionally  been  done  by  me,  in  order  to  see  what  revenues  it  will  yield, 
since  I  am  of  opinion  that  the  Company  can  do  as  good  a  trade  there  in 
an  open  river  as  can  private  individuals." 

Biscop  was  a  Surinam  Dutchman,  and  Beekman,  finding  that 
the  trade  in  Barima  was  promising,  as  he  had  already  found  about 
that  from  Poraeroon,  forbade  Biscop  and  other  Dutch  interlopers 
like  him  from  engaging  in  the  trade  in  both  places.  His  prohi- 
bition was  not  enforced;  and  in  his  very  next  letter,  written  three 
months  later,  March  31,  1684  (V.  C.  II,  45),  he  said: 

"  But  Gabriel  Biscop  and  other  sea-rovers  from  Surinam  not  only 
spoil  that  trade,  but  buy  up  all  the  letter- wood,  which  is  there  fairly 
abundant  and  good,  together  with  the  carap-oil  and  hammocks,  as  a  result 
of  which  I  have  obtained  this  year  only  very  few  old  and  bad  ones;  they 
traverse  and  overrun  the  land  even  into  the  river  Cuyuni." 

He  said: 

"I  wish  you  would  take  that  river  also  into  your  possession,  as  has  pro- 
visionally been  done  by  me,  in  order  to  see  what  revenues  it  will  yield,  since 
I  am  of  opinion  that  the  Company  can  do  as  good  a  trade  there,  in  an  open 
river  as  can  private  individuals." 

Beekman's  meaning  here  is  clear;  the  river  Barima  is  open  to 
general  traffic;  anybody  can  go  in  there  and  trade;  that  being  the 
case,  the  Company  has  a  right  to  go  in  there  as  much  as  anybody 
else;  therefore  he  asks  that  the  Company  will  take  the  river  into 
their  possession,  for  purposes  of  trade. 

What  Beekman  proposes  here  is  evidently  not  territorial 
acquisition.  All  that  he  is  talking  about  is  the  operation  of  trade 
in  a  certain  locality  in  Spanish  territory  which  was  open  to  gen- 
eral trade.  He  evidently  did  not  regard  the  region  as  Dutch.  His 
language  forbids  such  a  supposition.  His  idea  is  to  take  the  river 
into  possession  of  the  Company  as  against  other  Dutchmen  for 
purposes  of  trade,  which  he  has  done  provisionally.  When  in- 
cluded by  the  Company's  regulations  within  the  territory  restricted 
to  its  own  trade,  it  was,  in  the  sense  of  the  charter,  "  taken  into 

I  possession  "  for  trade  purposes. 
I 


514  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

In  his  letter  in  the  following  March  (V.  C.  II,  45),  he  renewed 
his  suggestion  about  the  Barinia,  and  stated  his  plan  of  erecting 
a  shelter,  to  be  visited  occasionally  by  the  Outlier  in  Pomeroon. 
He  said: 

"  It  would,  therefore,  if  I  may  suggest,  not  be  amiss  if  the  West  India 
Company,  in  order  to  obtain  the  aforesaid  trade,  should  take  that  river 
Barima  into  possession,  and  should  establish  there  a  permanent  outlier- 
ship." 

This  is  the  same  suggestion  as  that  previously  made,  in 
Beeknian's  letter  of  December  25,  except  that  it  is  more  definitely 
connected  with  trade. 

This  authorization  was  never  given.  In  the  petulant  answer 
of  the  Company  to  Beekman,  dated  August  24,  1684  (V.  C. 
II,  48),  they  condemned  nearly  everything  that  he  had  done  or 
suggested,  intimated  that  he  or  others  "helped  themselves  to 
the  profits  "of  the  Orinoco  trade,  and  found  it  advisable  "that 
you  stop  it." 

This  ended  all  Beekman's  schemes  with  reference  to  Barima, 
and  it  therefore  is  of  little  moment  whether  the  proposed  "taking 
into  possession "  related  to  trade  or  to  territorial  acquisition. 
Two  years  later  Barima  was  entirely  cut  off  from  the  Essequibo 
colony  by  the  establishment  of  the  second  colony  at  Pomeroon, 
under  De  Jonge,  Beekman's  personal  enemy.  De  Jonge  gave  no 
attention  whatever  to  Barima,  being  fully  occupied  with  the 
wants  of  his  struggling  colony  at  Pomeroom.  In  1689  this  colony 
was  destroyed  by  the  French  from  Barima;  the  property  was  re- 
moved to  Essequibo,  and  there  were  left  at  Pomeroon  only  three 
men  with  a  flag  for  the  maintenance  of  the  Company's  posses- 
sions. 

It  is  an  extraordinary  fact,  and  one  of  the  utmost  significance 
in  this  inquiry,  that  from  this  time,  during  the  whole  history  of 
the  Dutch  colony,  lasting  for  over  a  century,  hardly  another 
allusion  is  made  in  the  evidence  to  trade  with  the  Barima  district. 
A  great  deal  is  said  about  the  Orinoco  trade  carried  on  through 


POLITICAL  CONTROL.  516 

Barima,  which  will  presently  be  refened  to;  occasional  allusion  is 
made  to  fishing  near  the  Waini  and  in  the  Orinoco,  but,  with  the 
isolated  exceptions  named  below,  not  a  word  about  trade  in  the 
Barima  district. 

This  is  peculiarly  noticeable  in  the  various  Journals  recording 
the  daily  events  which  came  under  the  notice  of  the  Com- 
mandeur,  and  especially  the  voluminous  Diary  of  1699  to  170J, 
printed  in  full  in  B.  C.-C,  47-158,  where  it  covers  over  100  pages. 
This  "  Official  Diary  "  records  with  extraordinary  detail  everything 
that  came  under  the  notice  of  the  Commandeur  and  the  Secretary 
or  in  which  they  took  part.  It  records  the  movements  of  all  the 
Company's  old  negro  traders,  stating  when  they  left  the  colony, 
where  they  went  and  when  they  returned;  it  tells  the  movements 
of  the  Postholders,  and  what  supplies  they  obtained  in  the  way 
of  trade  at  their  posts,  including  those  at  Demerara,  Mahaicony 
and  Pomeroon;  it  mentions  the  Indians  who  came  with  wares  of 
various  kinds  to  Fort  Kykoveral,  stating  what  they  brought  and 
how  they  were  paid;  it  details  the  movements  of  the  Company's 
yacht,  of  the  coast-guard,  of  its  master  planters  on  the  Com- 
pany's plantations,  of  the  various  negro  slaves  engaged  in 
mechanical  work;  it  tells  of  the  issue  of  passports  to  planters  and 
others  going  out  of  the  limits  of  the  colony,  and  in  several  cases 
of  the  issue  of  such  passports  for  the  Spanish  trade  with  the  Ori- 
noco. It  indicates  that  the  three  Postholders  (Demerara,  Mahai- 
cony, and  Pomeroon)  carried  on  steadily  a  trade,  not  apparently  of 
any  considerable  volume,  however,  at  their  respective  posts,  and 
it  states  that  on  a  single  occasion,  on  November  11,  1699,  the 
yacht  "  Rammekens"  was  sent  to  the  Waini  (evidently  referring 
to  the  sea-coast  at  the  mouth  of  that  river)  to  salt  fish  and  to  trade 
■or  victuals,  but  arrived  on  December  29  "with  a  very  bad  catch 
and  without  having  done  any  trading"  (V.  C.  II,  65).  Except  for 
this,  there  is  no  reference  whatever  to  the  district  between  the 
Moruka,  the  Orinoco,  the  mountains  and  the  sea.  It  is  not  once 
entioned.    The  name  "  Barima  "  does  not  occur  in  the  Journal, 


516  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

nor  does  any  substitute  or  equivalent  for  it  occur.  When  it  is 
remembered  that  this  Journal  has  full,  minute  and  extensive  daily 
entries  for  two  whole  years,  the  absence  of  such  a  reference  is 
conclusive  proof  that  the  colony  of  Essequibo  had  nothing  what- 
ever to  do  with  trade  in  that  district. 

The  Journal  is  mentioned  particularly  in  connection  with  this 
subject  because  its  minuteness  is  such  that  here  if  anywhere,  ref- 
erence would  inevitably  be  made  to  Barima  trade,  supposing  that 
any  such  trade  existed. 

The  negative  evidence  from  the  whole  Dutch  correspondence 
is  equally  strong  and  conclusive.  It  nowhere  states  a  single  case 
of  trading,  after  1684,  by  the  colony  or  the  colony's  agents  in 
Barima  during  a  period  of  over  a  century;  or,  with  one  exception, 
by  the  settlers  of  Essequibo.  The  trade  with  the  Spaniards  in 
the  Orinoco  is  frequently  mentioned,  but  this  was  not  trade  with 
Barima;  it  was  merely  the  use  of  the  district  as  au  avenue  for 
intercolonial  Dutch  and  Spanish  trade,  a  use  to  which  it  was  put 
by  both  the  Dutch  and  Spaniards  and,  as  will  presently  be  shown, 
much  more  by  the  Spaniards  than  by  the  Dutch.  The  trade  at 
the  post  of  Pomeroon  or  Moruka  is  also  fiequently  mentioned; 
but  this  trade,  again,  was  not  trade  in  Barima,  it  was  a  trade 
carried  on  entirely  at  the  post  itself. 

The  single  exception  which  has  been  referred  to  is  the  follow- 
ing: 

A  certain  settler  named  Cauderas  in  1T35  (B.  C.  II,  20-21), 
having  received  a  permit  to  collect  some  debts  of  a  deceased  com- 
rade which  were  owed  to  him  by  Indians  said  to  have  been  in  the 
Barima,  took  the  permit,  together  with  some  red  slaves  belonging 
to  his  late  comrade,  and  went  off  to  Martinique.  Here  he  asso- 
ciated himself  with  some  Martinique  Frenchmen  who  wei*e  in  the 
habit  of  trading  in  Barima,  and  went  back  with  them  to  that 
locality.  In  the  course  of  his  wanderings  he  came  into  the  Esse- 
quibo River,  whereupon  the  Oomraandeur  put  him  in  jail. 


I 


POLITICAL   CONTROL.  517 

This  is  the  sole  base  of  Essequibo  trade  in  Barima  from  the  be- 
ginning to  the  end  of  the  18th  century. 

In  1744,  Comma ndeur  Storm  proposed  to  the  Company  the 
establishment  of  a  post  in  Barima.  This  is  the  first  proposal  of 
the  kind  that  had  been  made  since  that  of  Beekman  in  1683, 
which  the  Company  had  declined  to  adopt,  since  which  time,  as 
the  records  show,  the  subject  of  Barima  had  not  engaged  the 
attention  of  the  Colony, 

The  proposal  of  Storm,  in  1744,  had  a  very   different  origin 

from  that  of  Beekman,   in   1683.     Its  primary  object   was  the 

recovery  of  runaway  slaves,  who  took  that  course  to  the  Orinoco. 

He  said  (V.  C.  II,  95): 

"  The  chief  of  the  said  Indians  has  offered  me  to  answer  for  all  the 
runaway  slaves  of  this  colony  who  make  their  way  toward  Orinoco,  in 
case  I  would  establish  a  postholder  in  Barima." 

This,  then,  was  the  object  of  the  newly  projected  post,  as  it 
was  likewise  one  of  the  chief  objects,  it  will  be  remembered,  of 
the  post  established  eleven  years  later  in  Cuyuni. 

Storm  also  said,  incidentally,  that  the  post  "would  be  of 
great  utility  for  the  buying  up  of  boats  and  slaves,"  and  he 
added:  "I  have  not  yet  ventured  to  undertake  it  without  your 
orders. " 

It  is  not  necessary  to  seek  far  for  the  reasons  why  the  In- 
dians wanted  a  post  in  that  immediate  neighborhood,  when  one 
remembers  the  rum  which  was  always  on  tap  at  a  Dutch  post  for 
every  Indian  caller.  As  Professor  Burr  says  (V.  C.-C.  II,  127, 
note): 

"  This  estimate  of  the  persuasive  power  of  Dutch  rum  rests  not  alone 
on  the  complaints  of  the  Spanish  missionaries,  but  on  the  solid  evidence 
of  the  accounts  of  the  Company's  plantations  against  the  Company's  posts 
for  the  supply  of  this  necessity.  Its  consumption  at  the  Moruca  post, 
which  lay  nearest  the  Barima  Caribs,  was  especially  large,  and  was  expressly 

k justified  by  this  need  of  hospitality  to  the  Indians.  As  at  the  governor's 
residence,  so  at  the  posts,  no  Indian  was  suffered  to  go  thirsty  away. 
Even  when  in  lb03  (April  20)  Governor  Meertens  humanely  urged  placing 


518  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

over  the  Postholders  *  Protectors  of  the  Indians,'  he  suggested  that  these 
Protectors  be  authorized  to  purchase  *  the  necessary  rum  and  molasses ' 
for  the  welcome  of  the  Indians,  and  pointed  out  that  'the  Postholders 
should  also  be  put  in  a  position  to  give  a  glass  of  rum  to  the  Indians  who 
should  visit  them.  Even  the  consoling  qualities  of  spirits  were  not  un- 
known, for  in  the  same  governor's  journal  (April  9,  1803),  we  find  an 
order  to  his  quartermaster  to  deliver  '  to  certain  Indians  whose  father  and 
brother  were  lately  shot  dead  in  the  expedition  against  the  bush-negroes,' 
two  jugs  of  rum,  some  codfish  and  six  flasks  of  wine.  The  Spanish  mis- 
sionaries complained  especially  of  their  powerlessness  with  the  Indians 
against  this  Dutch  means  of  allurement." 

Numerous  references  might  be  given  to  show  the  practice  of 
distributing  spirits  to  the  Indians  at  the  Dutch  posts.  Thus,  the 
gratuity  delivered  in  goods,  mentioned  in  the  Minutes  of  the 
Court  of  Policy,  22nd  February,  1803  (B.  C.  VI,  180),  includes 
eighteen  cases  of  gin.  The  Journal  of  the  Commandeur,  1699  to 
1701  (B.  C.-C.  47-158),  frequently  refers  to  the  ''refreshment" 
given  to  Indians;  and  upon  this  point  the  British  Case  (App.  VII, 
181-183)  gives  some  statistics,  under  the  head  of  ''Delivery  of 
Kiltum  "  (rum),  from  which  it  appears  that  the  Company's  plan- 
tations supplied  a  part  of  the  rum  consumed  at  the  posts.  Thus 
one  of  the  plantations  in  six  years  supplied  330  gallons  to  Moruca 
and  Arinda.  How  much  they  had  from  other  sources  is  not 
shown.  An  extraordinary  statement  occurs  in  reference  to  the 
plantation  Duynenburg,  in  1778,  as  follows: 

**  August  8th. — To  the  Indians  in  their  revels,  by  order  of  the  Director- 
General  176  gallons. 

"  November.— To  the  Indians  who  have  been  fishing 15  gallons." 

Other  items  occur  from  the  other  plantations. 

It  was  evident  that  protection  and  trade  were  not  the  moving 
considerations  in  the  Indian  desire  for  a  post  in  Barima.  When 
by  order  of  the  Director-General,  one  hundred  and  seventy  six 
gallons  of  rum  could  have  been  delivered  to  the  Indians  in  one 
day,  to  be  consumed  on  one  occasion,  and  officially  stated 
in  the  returns  to  be  for  use  "in  their  revels,"  and  when  the 
accounts  of  a  single  plantation  show  frequent  shipments  of  rura 


POLITICAL  CONTROL.  519 

to  the  Moruca  and  Arinda  posts,  amounting  in  six  3'ears  to  nearly 
330  gallons,  the  fascinations  of  a  "  post"  nearby  are  not  difficult 
to  discover. 

In  August  of  the  same  year,  1744,  the  Company  gave  a  rather 

non-committal  reply  (V.  C.  II,  95)  to  Storm's  proposal  of  a  post  in 

Barima.     It  did  not  in  terms  approve  or  disapprove,  still  less  did 

it  order,  the  establishment  of  the  post.     It  merely  said: 

"  As  for  establishing  a  postholder  in  Barima  for  the  purpose  stated  in 
your  letter  "  [meaning  the  recovery  of  runaway  slaves],"  we  are  not  averse 
to  your  making  a  trial." 

Two  years  later,  in  1746,  Storm  reported  (V.  C.  II,  96)  that  he 
had  not  yet  established  any  post  in  Barima,  This  is  the  last  refer- 
ence of  any  kind  to  the  project.  The  post  was  never  established. 
No  muster  roll  of  the  colony  ever  refers  to  an  employee  in 
Barima. 

In  1757  Storm  reported  (B.  C.  II,  131)  that  complaints  had  been 
made  by  the  Commandant  of  Orinoco  from  time  to  time  of  "  the 
evil  conduct  in  Barima  of  the  traders,  or  wanderers,  as  well  from 
Surinam  as  from  here.  I  have  written  circumstantially  to  the 
ad  interim  Governor  there,  Mr.  I.  Nepveu  [the  Governor  of 
Surinam]." 

This  is  the  only  action  which  Storm  took  in  the  matter,  and 
it  plainly  shows  that  the  Surinam  Dutchmen  were  the  offenders 
referred  to.  No  suggestion  is  given  that  any  offenders  from  Esse- 
quibo  were  discovered  by  him,  and  the  phrase  in  his  report  was 
no  doubt  derived  from  the  language  habitually  and  somewhat 
loosely  used  by  the  Spanish  authorities  in  speaking  of  Dutch 
offenders  in  its  eastern  territory,  as,  for  example,  in  the  instruc- 
tions of  Valdes  to  Flores,  in  1760  (B.  C.  II,  187),  to  apprehend  "  the 
Dutch  settlers  in  the  adjoining  colonies  of  Essequibo  and  Suri- 
nam," in  which  case  the  evidence  shows  that  no  traders  from 
Essequibo  were  concerned. 

If  any  Essequibo  colonists  were  really  the  objects  of  complaint 
by  the  Governor,   they  must  have  been  those  engaged  in   the 


520  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

Orinoco  trade,  who,  as  we  know,  were  not  infrequently  arrested 
in  the  lower  Orinoco  or  Barima  by  the  Spaniards,  and  as  to  whose 
cases  the  Spanish  Governor  ingeniously  forestalled  any  complaint 
on  the  part  of  the  Director-General  by  himself  complaining  in 
advance  of  their  conduct.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  it 
was  only  in  January  of  the  following  year  that  the  Secretary  at 
Essequibo  reported  to  the  Company  that  a  canoe  sent  to  the 
Orinoco  in  September  for  mules  did  not  return  for  over  two 
months,  on  account  of  the  drought,  and  at  the  same  time  the 
quasi-Dutch  adventurer  Courthial  was  seized  by  the  Spaniards  in 
the  Orinoco  and  deprived  of  all  he  had. 

Subsequent  to  1684,  with  the  exception  above  mentioned,  not  an 
allusion  to  the  subject  of  Barima  trade  is  to  be  found  in  the  evidence 
down  to  the  transfer  of  British  Guiana  to  the  Enghsh  in  1814. 
This  fact  of  itself  is  sufficient  to  show  that  no  such  trade  existed, 
and  there  are  two  or  three  other  facts  which  confirm  this  conclu- 
sion. 

In  1754  Storm  reported  (V.  C.  II,  116),  in  speaking  of  the 
Spanish  activity  in  the  Orinoco,  that  several  vessels  and  canoes 
had  arrived  there  and  that  "  the  Surinam  wanderers  and  most  of 
the  Carib  Indians  have  retired  from  Barima,  and  have  departed 
to  the  Wayne." 

This  statement  shows  that  at  the  time  there  were  no  Esse- 
quibo traders  in  Barima.  Storm  is  describing  a  general  move- 
ment out  of  Barima,  both  of  Surinam  Dutchmen  and  of  Indians, 
in  consequence  of  the  Spanish  activity  in  that  quarter.  Had 
there  been  any  Essequibo  traders  in  Barima  at  the  same  time, 
they  certainly  would  have  moved  off  along  with  the  others,  and 
Storm  would  unquestionably  have  mentioned  the  fact,  as  a 
matter  of  far  more  importance  than  the  movements  of  tlie 
Surinamers. 

In  the  affidavit  dated  September  29,  1760,  of  Yana,  the  half- 
breed  Arawak  from  Wacupo,  who  was  captured  by  Lieutenant 
Flores  in  a  tishing  boat  in  Barima  in  that  year,   the  deponent 


r 


POLITICAL  CONTROL.  621 

stated  (V.  C.  II,  30),  with  reference  to  the  "  Dutch  settlers  from 
the  adjoining  colonies  of  Essequibo  and  Surinam,"  who  had  been 
reported  as  buying  poitos  in  the  river: 

"  That  the  Hollanders  that  purchased  Poytos  do  not  belong  to  the 
Esquivo  Colony,  but  to  that  of  Surinam,  because  in  that  of  Esquivo  the 
Governor  does  not  allow  any  Hollander  to  come  out  and  make  this  kind 
of  trade." 

It  may,  therefore,  be  taken  as  a  fact  proved  by  the  evidence 
in  this  case  that  the  Dutch  of  Essequibo  did  not  carry  on  tra,de 
with  the  natives  of  Barima  in  that  district;  that  whatever  trade 
they  had  with  such  natives  stopped  at  their  frontier,  namely, 
at  the  post  of  Ponieroon,  Wacupo  or  Moruca,  and  that  the  only 
exception  to  this  condition  of  affairs,  otherwise  lasting  over  a  hun- 
dred and  sixty-six  years,  from  1648  to  1814,  was  during  a  part  of 
the  two  years  1683  and  1684,  when  the  Commandeur,  Beekman, 
interested  himself  in  the  subject,  and  when  the  post  at  Pomeroon 
had  only  just  been  established,  and  the  isolated  case  of  Cauderas 
above  mentioned. 

The  statements  in  the  British  Case  (pp.  80-81)  in  reference  to 
trade  in  the  Barima  which  seem  to  imply  that  the  Essequibo 
Dutch  were  in  the  habit  of  trading  with  the  natives  in  that  dis- 
trict must  be  carefully  examined. 

The  statement  is  first  made  that: 

*'In  1673  the  Dutch  were  trading  to  Barima  for  crab-oil,  and  be- 
tween this  date  and  1684  there  are  several  other  references  in  the  Dutch 
records  to  trade  carried  on  between  Essequibo  and  this  district." 

It  is  true  that  Rol,  in  16T3,  stated,  at  the  place  named  (B.  C.  I, 
1Y3)  that: 

"  Peace  had  been  made  with  the  Caribs  in  Barima  and  the  Arawaks, 
and  they  had  intercourse  with  each  other,  and  he  was  going  to  send  a 
boat  after  carap-oil;" 

but  it  must  be  repeated,  as  stated  before,  that  with  the  exception 
of  this  one  statement,  that  Rol  was  going  to  send  a  boat  after 
crab-oil,  no  allusion  is  made  to  Indian  trade  in  the  Barima  until 
1683. 


522  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

If  it  can  be  said  from  this  statement  that  "  in  1673  the  Dutch 
were  trading  to  Barima,"  then  it  is  drawing  a  very  large  conclu- 
sion from  a  very  small  premise.  Rol  does  not  even  say  that  he 
carried  out  his  intention  of  sending  the  boat,  and  as  no  mention  is 
made  of  the  fact,  it  must  be  inferred  that  none  was  sent. 

In  1683  and  1684,  when  Beekman  conceived  his  large  project 
of  Barima  trade,  the  project  and  the  projector  were  so  severely 
snubbed  by  the  Company  immediately  after  that  nothing  further 
was  heard  of  it.  There  is  no  reference  to  Barima  trade  between 
1648  and  Beekman's  project,  in  1683,  except  the  proposal  to  send 
a  boat  for  crab-oil  there,  in  1673.  The  reference  given  in  the 
British  Case  (B.  C.  I,  181-182),  as  a  reference  to  Barima  trade  does 
not  refer  to  that  trade  at  all.  It  is  a  reference  to  the  trade  at 
Pomeroon  and  to  the  trade  with  Spaniards  in  the  Orinoco,  but 
there  is  no  allusion  whatever  to  trade  in  Barima. 

The  British  Case  next  states  (p.  81,)  that  in  1726  the  Postholder 
of  Wakepo  was  sent  to  the  Governor  of  Santo  Thome  to  request 
leave  to  trade  in  the  Orinoco,  and  that  it  he  were  refused  he  was 
instructed  to  endeavor  to  obtain  the  slaves  and  balsam  he  desired 
in  the  Aguirre. 

This  is  true,  but  it  is  entirely  beside  the  question.  It  is  signifi- 
cant that  leave  was  asked  to  trade  in  the  Orinoco,  but  not  signifi- 
cant of  Dutch  sovereignty.  As  to  the  Aguirre,  that  river  is  not 
in  controversy  in  the  present  proceeding.  It  is  as  much  Vene- 
zuelan territory  as  any  part  of  Venezuela,  and  whether  the  Dutch 
traded  there  or  not  is  immaterial  except  as  showing  that  they 
traded  in  territories  confessedly  Spanish. 

The  same  may  be  said  of  the  next  statement  in  the  British 
Case  (p.  81)  that 

"  In  1730  a  Dutch  trader  is  mentioned  in  the  Aguirre." 

The  Case,  however,  goes  on  to  say  that 

"  In  1735,  1764,  1757  and  1760  Dutch  traders  were  in  the  Barima." 

This  must  be  examined.  It  would  not  signify  much  if  Dutch 
tradei-8  had  been  ia  the  Barima  in  the  four  years  named.     The 


POLITICAL  CONTROL.  623 

only  astonishing  fact  would  be  that  this  was  the  only  trace  of 
them  to  be  found.  But,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  only  one  of  the  four 
cases  named  is  in  point.  This  is  the  case  of  Cauderas,  in  1Y35 
(B.  C.  II,  20-21),  already  mentioned. 

The  second,  that  in  1754  (B.  C.  II,  100),  is  a  reference  to  the 
statement  that  "  the  Surinam  wanderers  and  most  of  the  Carib 
Indians  have  retired  from  Barima."  This  is  not  a  case  of  Esse- 
quibo  traders  in  Barima. 

The  third  reference,  that  in  1757  (B.  C.  II,  131-132),  is  to  the 
letter  of  the  Director-General  referring  to  the  complaints  of  the 
Governor  of  Orinoco,  already  mentioned,  of  the  conduct  of  the 
wanderers  from  Surinam  and  Essequibo. 

The  fourth,  in  1760  (B.  C.  II,  187),  is  the  case  of  the  slave 
traders  in  pursuit  of  whom  Flores  was  sent  on  his  expedition, 
and,  as  has  been  already  clearly  shown,  in  like  manner  referred 
solely  to  the  wanderers  from  Surinam. 

The  statements  which  have  already  been  made  with  reference 
to  the  absence  of  any  trade  with  the  natives  in  Barima  of  the 
Essequibo  Dutch  may,  therefore,  be  reasserted,  any  statement  in 
the  British  Case  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  In  fact,  the 
very  statement  in  the  British  Case  is  the  strongest  confirmation 
of  the  position  here  taken. 

2.  The  Barima-  Waini  district,  as  a  means  of  transit  and  traffic, 
was  used  much  more  by  the  Spaniards  than  by  the  Dutch. 

The  subject  of  the  Orinoco  trade  of  the  colony  of  Essequibo  has 
been  already  referred  to  in  speaking  of  settlement.  Whatever 
this  trade  was,  it  was  not  a  trade  with  Barima.  Barima  only 
appeared  in  it  at  all  as  affording  the  avenue  by  which  it  was 
in  part  conducted,  for  it  was  also  conducted  in  part  by  sea. 
Thus,  on  February  24,  1700  (B.  C.-C,  88),  the  Company's  yacht 
"  Rammekens"  made  a  trading  voyage  to  Orinoco  and  Trinidad, 
returning  on  June  21  of  the  same  year  {id.,  105). 

The  trade  with  the  Spanish  settlements  in  Orinoco,  which, 


!■ 


524  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

under  the  Spanish  law,  was  reserved  to  Spanish  subjects,  was  a 
contraband  trade,  and  it  was  only  carried  on  in  collusion  with  the 
Spanish  authorities,  who  seem  to  have  derived  from  it  a  consider- 
able personal  revenue.  As  might  be  expected  under  these  circum- 
stances, it  was  liable  to  frequent  interruptions,  and  the  references 
to  it  in  the  Dutch  records,  which  are  numerous,  show  that  its  ups 
and  downs  followed  each  other  in  rapid  succession,  and  that 
neither  the  Commandeur  nor  the  Company  could  well  keep  track 
of  them. 

There  is  no  reference  to  this  trade  in  the  Spanish  records,  for 
obvious  reasons.  Moreover,  the  Spanish  records,  being  those  of 
an  ordinary  Colonial  Government,  are  confined  almost  wholly  to 
matters  of  military  and  ecclesiastical  administration.  Other 
matters  seem  to  have  been  treated  in  general  reports,  which, 
made  at  infrequent  intervals,  were  more  like  dissertations  on  gen- 
eral colonial  policy  then  administrative  reports  in  the  ordinary 
sense. 

The  first  reference  to  the  subject  is  in  1673  (B.  C.  II,  36),  where 
Kol  reports  that: 

**He  had  sent  some  wares  to  Orinoco  for  the  purpose  of  trade;  by 
mistake  these  were  carried  to  Trinidad,  and,  no  opportunity  being  found 
to  trade  there,  they  had  come  back  home." 

From  this  time,  the  trade  between  the  Dutch  and  Spaniards 
was  pursued  under  great  difficulties  and  with  frequent  interrup-  i 
tions.  { 

In  August,  1684,  the  Company  became  extremely  dissatisfied  5 
with  Beekman,  as  already  related,  and  sent  him  its  caustic  letter 
of  August  24,  in  w^hich  it  said  (V.  C.  II,  50): 

"  Concerning  the  trade  to  Orinoco,  we  find  it  advisable  that  you  stop 
it,  and  neither  trade  thither  yourself,  nor  permit  trade  thither,  directly  or 
indirectly,  until  lurther  orders;  since  we  are  of  opinion  that  the  Company 
bears  all  the  expenses  and  burdens,  and  that  others  help  themselves  to  the 
profits." 


POLITICAL  CONTROL.  525 

Beekman,  on  January  15,  1685,  replied  (V.  C.  II,  52): 

"  That  you  stop  the  Orinoco  trade  is  a  good  thing;  that  business  has 
always  brought  in  much  glory  and  little  gain." 

Notwithstanding  this  prohibition,  it  appears  from  the  Journal 
of  the  Commandeur,  from  1699  to  ITOI  (B.  C.-C,  47-158),  that 
the  trade  was  then  going  on.  In  1712,  however,  Comman- 
deur Van  der  Heyden  reported  (V.  C.  II,  74)  that  the  Orinoco 
authorities  had  all  at  once  prohibited  the  traffic  in  balsam  copaiba, 
which  at  that  time  was  the  article  principally  traded  in,  and  that 
the  new  Governor  had  vessels  cruising  in  the  Orinoco  to  confiscate 
all  Dutch  vessels  which  might  come  thither.  "But,"  he  added, 
*'at  the  piesent  moment  the  traffic  is  again  free." 

In  1720  and  the  following  years  the  trade  with  Orinoco  had 
taken  on  considerable  dimensions,  especially  the  horse  trade,  and 
it  appears  to  have  been  carried  on,  not  as  previously,  by  the  Dutch 
at  Orinoco,  but  by  the  Spaniards  at  Essequibo  or  Pomeroon.  Late 
in  1726  the  Court  of  Policy  reported  (V.  C.  II,  80)  that  the  Com- 
mandeur, with  the  Secretary  and  others,  had  selected  a  site  for  a 
new  post  at  Moruca,  and  that  "  they  decided  that  the  fittest  place 
was  where  the  horse-dealers  fiom  Orinocque  generally  moor  their 
boats  in  the  river  of  Marocco,  it  being  possible  to  build  a  house 
there  so  close  to  the  river  side  that  a  hand  grenade  can  be  thrown 
into  the  boat,  the  river  being  at  its  narrowest  there." 

Very  shortly  after,  in  March,  1727,  the  Court  reported  (V.  C. 
II,  81)  that  some  Dutchmen  having  gone  to  Orinoco,  "  the  Span- 
iards took  all  their  merchandise,  and  told  them  that  they  had 
orders  from  the  Governor  of  Trinidad  to  stop  the  trade  in  that 
river," 

In  1731  the  Company  wrote  (V.  C.  II,  83): 

"  That  it  is  far  more  advisable  for  the  Company  to  foster  the  trade  to 
Orinoco  with  the  Spaniards  than  to  favor  this  dealing  with  the  English  " 
(referring  particularly  to  the  trade  in  horses). 

In  1733  the  Commandeur  stated  (V.  C.  II,  85)  that  the  need  of 
horses  having  become  great,  "  I  shall  by  all  available  means  try 


526  ADVERSE  HOUSING. 

to  be  helped  by  the  Spaniards,"  although  the  Court  had  previously 
reported  that  the  trade  with  the  Spaniards  "  in  Rio  Orinoco  cannot 
be  relied  upon  "  (V.  C,  II,  84). 

All  this  points  strongly  to  putting  the  trade  as  far  as  possible 
in  Spanish  hands. 

The  Cornmandeur,  having  occasion,  in  1734,  to  complain,  as  he 
thought,  of  the  Spanish  Governor's  action  in  reference  to  one 
Reiter,  who  had  been  sent  to  the  Orinoco  to  bring  back  horses, 
and  who  had  concluded  to  remain  there,  alleging  that  he  was  a 
Catholic,  concluded  that  he  would  not  do  anything  to  interrupt 
intercourse  with  the  Spaniards,  because  (V.  C.  II,  86) 

"  when  one  duly  considers  our  situation  here,  how  absolutely  we  depend 
upon  the  Spaniards  for  the  horse  trade,  because  the  English  bring  them 
no  more,  this  consideration  alone  would  suffice  for  the  maintenance  of 
that  intercourse." 

In  1734  the  Spanish  Governor  notified  the  Dutch  Cornmandeur 
(V.  C.  II,  87)  that  "from  now' on  the  commerce  was  at  an  end," 
while  the  Commandeur  on  his  part  issued  an  order  that  "no 
more  passes  to  Oriuoco  will  be  issued  by  me,  and  that  nobody 
whosoever  will  be  allowed  to  set  out  without  one  on  penalty  of 
a  heavy  fine." 

Nothing  is  done,  however,  to  prevent  the  Spaniards  coming  to 
Moruka,  with  reference  to  whom  the  site  for  the  post  had  been 
especially  selected,  and  it  is,  therefore,  not  surprising  to  find  the 
Commandeur  stating,  in  November,  1734  (V.  C.  II,  87),  that  the 
"Orinoco  trade  is  again  under  way." 

The  whole  situation  is  explained  by  a  letter  of  the  West  India 
Company  to  Commandeur  Storm,  May  30,  1748  (V.  C.  II,  101), 
in  which  they  said: 

"It  gave  us  especial  pleasure  to  learn  through  a  subsequent  letter 
from  you,  dated  September  9,  how,  by  the  zeal  you  have  shown,  the  trad» 
of  the  Spaniards  in  the  river  of  Essequiho  begins  to  develop  more  and  more, 
and  we  hope  that  all  further  means  will  be  put  in  operation  to  make  it 
altogether  flourish  there." 


POLITICAL   CONTROL.  52Y 


i 


It  appears  from  this  last  extract  that  the  trade  with  Orinoco 
had  been  practically  transferred  to  the  Essequibo  side  of  the  dis- 
trict; that  the  Spaniards  were  coming  there  with  their  wares,  and 
tliat  no  further  difficulty  need  be  experienced  as  a  result  of  the 
presence  of  Dutchmen  in  the  Orinoco. 

It  also  appears  that  this  was  peculiarl}'  Storm's  policy.  This  is 
confirmed  by  a  letter  of  March  27,  1749  (V.  C.  II,  102),  in  which 
he  said : 

''  There  should  sometime  be  some  profit  gained  with  the  Spaniards, 
though  the  attempt  is  made  as  far  as  possible  to  pay  attention  thereto. 
But  many  Spaniards,  come  and  go  out  of  the  river  without  coming  under 
my  observation;" 

and  he  added: 

"  In  order  not  to  frighten  away  the  Spaniards,  I  have  until  now  re- 
mained quiet  in  consequence  of  pressure,  and  have  only  ordered  the  Post- 
holder  of  Marocco  always  to  advise  me  when  any  come,  stating  their 
names,  and  to  whom  addressed,  so  that  I  have  always  been  informed 
thereof." 

In  1753  the  Company  enjoined  upon  him  to  encourage  the  trade 
(V.  0.  II,  109). 

So  matters  remained  until  1761,  when  Storm  reported  (V.  C. 
II,  120): 

"  I  have  always  imagined  that  it  was  best  for  our  inhabitants  to  send 
few  or  no  boats  to  Orinoco,  and  so  compel  the  Spaniards  to  come  here  with 
their  merchandise ;  in  this  way  our  people  would  not  be  exposed  to  the 
least  danger,  and  the  arrangement  began  to  work  very  well." 

But  he  went  on  to  say  that  the  jealousy  of  the  colonists  towards 
the  Spaniards,  by  reason  of  allowing  the  latter  to  come  to  Essequibo, 
was  so  great  that  he  was  "  coerced  into  taking  a  course  which  I 
really  believe  to  be  disadvantageous,  and  into  which  I  am  forced 
because  I  do  not  want  to  have  seven-eighths  of  the  colony  against 
me."  For  that  reason,  he  had  ordered  that  no  more  Spaniards  be 
allowed  to  come  up  the  Essequibo  River.     It  does  not  appear, 


528  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

however,  that  he  prohibited  them  from  coming  to  Moruca;  and 
he  mentioned  the  arrival  of  some  of  tiiem  at  that  place  with  a 
large  quantity  of  tobacco. 

To  this  the  Company  replied,  in  November  of  the  same  year 
(V.  C,  II,  146),  suggesting  that  it  would  be  "more  profitable  to 
the  Company,  to  direct  this  trade  into  such  channels  that  it  must 
be  carried  on  from  Orinoco  to  Essequibo,  by  the  Spaniards; "  and 
the  Court  of  Policy,  in  reply,  March  18,  1762  (V.  C,,  II,  148),  re 
ported  that  the  trade  carried  on  by  Dutchmen  in  the  Orinoco, 

"  consists  of  mere  bagatelles,  and  is  considered  so  risky  and  precarious 
that  not  more  than  two  of  our  settlers  (Persik  and  Struys)  carry  on  trade 
with  that  Spanish  river.  Their  boats  are  mostly  manned  by  Spaniards, 
who  are  intrusted  with  the  business  both  in  cattle  and  tobacco  ;'* 

and  they  concluded  that  it  was  inexpedient  for  the  Dutch  colo- 
nists to  take  up  the  business. 

The  facts  are  correctly  stated  by  the  British  Counter-Case  (p. 
80),  which  says: 

"  The  facts  are  that  though  in  1760  the  trade  was  practically  open,  tho 
Dutch  Director-General,  in  March  1761,  reported  that  everything  in 
Orinoco  was  in  disorder,  the  Commandant  having  been  summoned  to 
Cumanfi,  to  answer  several  charges  brought  against  him  ;  that  in  the  pre- 
vious year  he  had,  under  pressure  from  the  traders  of  the  Dutch  Colony, 
forbidden  Spaniards  to  come  to  the  Essequibo,  but  considered  this  mea- 
sure to  be  injurious  to  the  interests  of  the  Company  ;  and  that,  in  his 
opinion,  it  was  best  to  send  few  or  no  boats  to  the  Orinoco,  and  to  compel 
the  Spaniards  to  come  to  the  Essequibo. 

"  In  November  the  Company  supported  the  view  of  the  Director-Gen- 
eral, and  the  Court  of  Policy  reported  that  the  trade  was  a  mere  bagatelle 
and  also  risky  and  precarious,  particularly  as  England  and  Spain  were 
said  again  to  be  at  war,  and  Orinoco  would  probably  soon  be  ruined  for 
many  years  to  come.  Consequently  the  trade  was  purposely  suspended  by 
the  Dutch." 

From  this  time  on  there  are  numerous  indications  of  the  prose- 
cution of  this  trade  by  the  Spaniards  and  its  abandonment  by  the 
Dutch. 


POLITICAL  CONTROL.  529 

In  1763  the  Secretary  reported  (V.  C.  II,  153)  that: 

"The  uncertainty  of  how  they  would  be  treated  by  the  Spanish  is  the 
reason  why  I  have  this  year  sent  no  boats  belonging  either  to  the  Com- 
pany or  to  myself  out  salting  to  the  coast  of  Orinoque." 

In  the  same  year  Storm  reported  (V.  C.  II,  154),  speaking  of  the 
post  of  Moruca,  that: 

"  The  road  of  the  Spaniards  hither  leads  past  this  Post,  so  that  no  one 
can  go  that  road  without  the  knowledge  of  the  Postholder,  who,  there- 
fore, if  he  wishes,  can  generally  get  to  know  what  is  going  on  in  Orinoque." 

In  1764  he  reported  (V.  C.  II,  155): 

"  Only  last  week  two  Spaniards  came  to  me  Avith  formal  passports  from 
the  Governor  to  come  here." 

In  a  memorandum  of  about  the  same  date  Storm  (V.  C.  II,  157), 
referring  to  the  post  of  Moruca  and  to  its  use  in  furthering  com- 
merce with  the  Spaniards,  said: 

'•All  who  do  not  sail  in  very  large  ships  having  to  pass  the  Post  on 
their  journey  from  Orinoque." 

In  the  same  memorandum  he  added: 

'•All  the  Spaniards  who  come  here  with  mules,  cattle,  tobacco,  hides, 
dried  meat,  &c.,  pass  the  Post,  and  stop  there  for  a  few  days  to  refresh 
themselves  and  their  animals.  If  he  [the  Postholder]  kept  a  stock  of  the 
things  that  the  Spaniards  required,  the  latter  would  be  very  pleased  to 
buy  them  there,  and  not  be  obliged  to  go  further." 

In  accordance  with  the  policy  now  fully  established,  Storm,  in 
the  instructions  issued  under  date  of  October  7,  1767,  to  the  Post- 
holder  at  Moruca  (B.  C.  Ill,  155)  stated: 

"  7.  He  shall  demand  from  the  Spaniards  coming  there  with  tobacco, 
&c.,  five  per  cent,  import  duty  and  forward  the  same." 

From  this  time  on  not  only  is  nothing  more  heard  of  Dutch 
traders  dealing  with  Indians  in  Barima,  but  nothing  is  heard 
of  them  in  connection  with  the  Orinoco  trade.  As  will  pres- 
ently be  shown,  the  whole  district  was  effectively  occupied  and 
patrolled  during  the  remainder  of   the   century;  and   as   late  as 


580  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

1794,  the  Governor-General  of  the   Colony,  Sirtema  van  Grove- 
stins,  wrote  to  the  Dutch  Council  of  the  Colonies  (V.  C.  II,  248): 

''That  in  the  rainy  season  the  Spanish  lanchas  come  from  Orinoco  so 
far  as  Moruca  by  an  inland  way,  passing  from  one  creek  into  another,  and 
they  transport  in  this  fashion  their  horned  cattle  and  mules,  and  find  on 
the  way  the  necessary  sustenance  for  the  cattle,  both  grass  and  water.*' 

8.  The  Dutch  exercised  no  political  control  in  the  Barima-Waini 
district  and  made  there  no  claim  of  right. 

It  is  evident  that  Conimandeur  Beekman,  when  he  made  his 
abortive  proposal  in  1683  in  reference  to  trade  in  Barima,  did  not 
claim  any  territorial  rights  in  that  region.  His  only  idea  was  to 
retain  his  hold  on  Pomeroon  as  a  frontier.  The  extensive  opera- 
tions which  he  records  of  the  French  traders  in  the  Barima  region 
at  this  very  time  he  made  no  attempt  to  interfere  with.  If  the 
territory  had  at  that  time  been  Dutch,  he  would  have  put  a  stop 
to  them,  for  he  records  the  fact  that  they  w^ere  distinctly  injurious 
to  Dutch  trade. 

In  1694,  the  statement  is  made  by  Beekman  (B.  C.  I,  213),  that 
"  most  of  the  red  slaves  come  from  the  Rivers  Barima  and  Ori- 
noco, which  lies  under  the  dominion  of  the  Spaniard  "—a  pretty 
strong  intimation  that  the  region  referred  to  is  Spanish. 

Not  a  word  is  heard  of  Dutch  territorial  rights  in  Barima  until 
the  administration  of  Storm  van 's  Gravesande. 

In  the  chapter  of  this  Argument  on  the  Dutch  boundary 
(Chapter  X,  p.  309)  a  detailed  history  of  the  boundary  dis- 
cussion as  to  the  coast  territory  has  been  given,  with  citations 
from  the  correspondence,  and  the  Counsel  for  Venezuela  would 
ask  that  reference  may  be  made  at  this  point  to  that  statement, 
in  order  that  its  significance  may  be  fully  considered  as  showing 
the  entire  absence  of  any  claim  on  the  part  of  the  Dutch  to  terri- 
torial control  in  this  district.  Without  recurring  again  to  those 
confused  and  discordant  suggestions  of  claim,  it  is  enough  to  men- 
tion here,  as  disposing  of  all  such  extravagant  pretensions  as  to 


POLITICAL   CONTROL.  531 

the  Waini,  the  Barima  and  the  Amakuru  two  statements,  hoth  of 
the  highest  anthority— made,  one  in  1749,  the  other  in  1704.  The 
first  is  the  dehberate  professional  opinion  given  to  Storm  by  "  the 
foremost  jurists  of  the  province  of  Holland  "  that  Pechy,  a  point 
between  the  Moruca  and  the  Waini,  was  in  Spanish  territory;  the 
second,  the  declaration  of  the  first  Governor-General  of  the  colony 
of  Essequibo,  after  it  had  reverted  to  the  Dutch  Government  that 
the  creek  of  Moruca  "  up  to  now  has  been  maintained  to  be  the 
boundary  of  our  territory  with  that  of  Spain." 
'Mf  There  is  no  record  that  a  Spaniard  was  ever  tried,  punished,  or 
even  arrested  by  the  Dutch,  for  anything  done  by  him  in  Barima. 
There  is  no  record  that  an  Indian  was  ever  punished  for  anything 
done  in  Barima.  There  is  no  record  even  that  a  Surinam  Dutch- 
man was  ever  punished  for  anything  done  in  Barima.  There  is  no 
record  that  a  Postholder  ever  went  into  Barima  in  one  hundred  and 
sixty-six  years,  except  when  Baudaart  went  there,  in  1683,  for 
a  brief  season,  to  endeavor  to  start  a  trade  there,  in  which  he 
apparently  failed,  and  when  the  Postholder,  in  1766,  went  to  get 
Rosen.  On  one  occasion,  in  1726,  Jan  Batiste,  the  Postholder  of 
Wacupo  was  sent  to  trade  in  the  Orinoco,  but  there  is  no  record 
that  he  did  anything  in  Barima.  There  is  no  record  that  any 
official  of  the  colony  ever  set  foot  in  the  territory  in  question 
except  upon  these  three  occasions.  No  legulation  was  ever  made 
in  reference  to  that  territory  by  the  Dutch  which  applied  to 
foreigners.  There  is  no  evidence  of  any  trade  carried  on  by 
Dutchmen  in  Barima.  There  is  evidence  that  boats,  most  of 
which,  the  Commandeur  says,  were  manned  by  Spaniards,  in 
the  employ  of  two  or  three  Dutchmen  pursued  a  trade  to  Orinoco; 
but  Barima  was  simply  used  as  a  channel  of  communication, 
and  the  traffic  was  almost  wholly  conducted  by  Spanish  boats  at 
Essequibo  or  Moruca. 

It  appears  from  that  statement  that  no  control  was  ever  exer- 
cised by  the  Dutch  in  Barima,  and  that  they  never  asserted  a 
claim  of  right  to  the  coast  territory  with  the  single  exception  of 


532  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

the  fishery  at  the  mouth  of  the  Waini,  and  that  even  this  they  re- 
peatedly contradicted.  Even  the  personal  jurisdiction  over 
Dutchmen  was  only  exercised,  as  far  as  we  know,  in  the  affair  of 
Rosen,  and  that  was  after  an  application  for  permission  to  the 
Governor  at  Orinoco.  Of  territorial  jurisdiction  properly  so 
called,  there  was  nothing.  The  whole  territorial  claim  of  the 
Dutch  to  that  region  began  and  ended  in  the  mind  of  Storm,  and 
his  opinions  on  the  subject  were  so  various  that  it  is  impossible 
to  say  what  he  did  or  did  not  claim.  The  Company  evidently 
did  not  know  what  to  claim,  as  appears  plainly  enough  from  its 
letter  of  1766  (B.  C.  Ill,  137),  where  it  said: 

"  If  that  place  is  really  Spanish  territory,  then  you  have  acted  very 
imprudently  and  irregularly;  and,  on  the  contrary,  if  that  place  forms  part 
of  the  Colony,  and  you  had  previously  been  in  error  as  to  the  territory, 
then  you  have  done  very  well." 

Nor  was  their  perplexity  lemarkable,  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
at  one  time  or  another  Storm's  correspondence  suggested  nearly 
every  stream  in  the  region  as  the  boundary,  and  again  with  equal 
emphasis  explicitly  denied  the  Dutch  claim  to  each  of  them  in 
succession. 

Such  is  the  character  of  the  Dutch  records,  that  if  there  had 
been  any  jurisdiction  over  foreigners  in  Barima,  we  should  have 
seen  the  evidence  of  it  again  and  again.  It  would  not  be  neces- 
sary to  discuss  the  question  in  reference  to  one  particular  incident 
only;  it  would  have  been  shown  by  a  multitude  of  incidents, 
every  one  of  which  would  have  found  its  place  in  the  records,  j 
The  conclusion  is  irresistible  that  there  was  no  such  thing  as 
political  control  on  the  part  of  the  Dutch  over  the  coast  territory. 

The  most  positive  contradiction  of  Dutch  claims,  however,  is  ? 
to  be  found  in  the  acts  performed  by  the  Spaniards  in  Barima,  to 
which  attention  must  now  be  given. 

4.  Spanish  acts  of  dominion  in  Barima  and  the  lower  Orinoco. 
As  the  territorial  claim  of  Great  Britain  in  the  present  contro- 
versy includes  the  right  bank  of  the  Orinoco  from  the  Amakuru 


POLITICAL  CONTROL.  533 

to  the  sea,  as  being  a  part  of  the  coast  territory,  it  is  necessary  to 
investigate  the  acts  of  dominion  performed  by  Spain  not  only  in 
the  coast  territory  but  upon  the  lower  Orinoco  itself. 

In  the  lower  Orinoco,  Spain  asserted  her  right  to  regulate 
trade  and  to  deal  with  those  violating  her  regulations  from  a  very 
early  period.  In  IGTo  the  Dutchman  Asseliers(V.  C.  II,  37)  was 
refused  permission  to  trade,  at  the  time  of  his  visit,  but  was 
informed  that  at  a  later  date  the  trade  would  be  allowed,  and  the 
landing  which  he  was  to  use  was  designated. 

In  1680  the  Spaniards  were  only  permitting  this  trade  to  be 
carried  on  by  canoe  (V.  0.  II,  39). 

In  1681  the  Spanish  authorities  caused  Laman,  one  of  the  West 
India  Company's  traders,  together  with  one  of  his  negroes,  w^ho 
were  trading  to  the  Orinoco,  to  be  arrested,  the  trade  having  then 
been  prohibited  (V.  C.  II,  41,  42). 

In  1712,  on  the  occasion  of  the  expedition  of  Mollinay  to  the 
Orinoco  to  discover  some  buried  treasure  reported  by  the  In- 
I     dians,  the  Governor  of  Surinam  wrote  (V.  C.  II,  73-74): 

*'  No  whites  are  allowed  to  enter  the  Orinoco  except  with  a  pass.  The 
thing  we  have  in  view  could  be  accomplished  only  under  pretext  of  trad- 
ing with  the  Indians,  for  which  we  would  need  the  permission  of  the 
commander,  of  the  Orinoco.  He  was  favorably  inclined  towards  us,  and 
if  he  had  remained  in  command  we  might  have  expected  everything 
from  him  ;  this  was  why  Mollinay  had  orders  to  address  himself  to  him. 
Now  there  is  another  commander  who  is  not  willing  to  allow  any  one 
there." 

The  same  change  is  referred  to  by  the  Essequibo  Commandeur 
Van  der  Heyden,  in  a  letter  to  the  Company  of  July  31,  1712  (V. 
C.  II,  74),  who  says,  speaking  of  the  balsam  trade: 

"  .  .  .  they  in  Orinoco  had  all  at  once  prohibited  the  traffic  in  it 
to  the  Hollanders,  these  changes  having  come  to  pass  with  the  arrival  of 
a  new  Governor  at  Trinidad,  who,  with  this  object,  has  caused  several 
manned  vessels  to  cruise  in  the  River  Orinoco,  so  as  to  confiscate  and 
bring  in  as  good  prizes  all  Dutch  vessels  who  should  wish  to  come 
thither;  that  has  forced  me  to  put  a  stop  to  the  journey,  since  of  neces- 


534  -  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

sity  I  dared  not  liazard  aud  put  in  danger  on  such  like  a  journey  the 
Company's  cargoes,  slaves,  vessels,  and  other  goods." 

In  1713  Van  der  Heyden  reported  to  the  Company  (V.  C.  J  I, 
76): 

"For  a  considerable  time  it  has  not  been  possible  to  carry  it  [the 
trade  in  copaiba]  on,  because  of  some  dislike  which  the  Spaniards  (on 
whose  territory  the  copaiba  is  traded  in)  have  taken  to  our  nation  ;  they 
also  have  now  been  cruising  after  the  Dutch  boats  which  go  thither ;  so 
that  I  have  not  dared  to  risk  so  greatly  the  Company's  wares  and  other 
effects." 

It  was  in  the  following  year,  May  14,  1714,  that  the  Company 
wrote  an  emphatic  reply  to  Van  der  Heyden  (V.  C,  II.,  76), 
taking  the  ground  that  it  had  the  right  to  forbid  the  trade  of  its 
Dutch  colonists,  in  Spanish  territory — in  other  words  that  its 
personal  control  of  its  colonists  extended  to  their  acts  in  foreign 
countries.  In  this  letter  the  Company  especially  recognize  Spanish 
soveignty  ovei*  the  Orinoco. 

Again,  in  the  "  Memorial  of  the  Free  Settlers  of  Essequibo," 
May  24,  1717  (V.  C.  II,  77),  Orinoco  is  spoken  of  as  "a  river, 
which  is  outside  of  the  territory  of  the  Noble  Company,  where 
the  same  has  no  more  power  than  a  private  merchant,  which  is 
in  the  Spanish  possession."    It  added: 

"  Your  Noblenesses  are  also  aware  (or  at  least  we  suppose  so)  that 
Orinoco  is  a  river  which  is  accounted  as  the  property  of  the  King  or 
Crown  of  Spain,  and  consequently  that  nation  there  master ;" 

and  it  referred  to  the  disadvantage  that  the  colonists  of  Esse- 
quibo were  under  in  trafficking  in  this  territory  as  compared  with 
the  Surinam  traders,  mentioning  as  the  rivers  where  the  latter 
traded  '•  Marocco,  Weijne,  Barima,  Pomeroon,  Orinoco,  Trin- 
idad." 

In  1727  the  Court  of  Policy  reported  (V.  C,  IT.,  80)  that 
Pieter  la  Riviere,  an  Essequibo  colonist,  had  gone  to  Orinoco  to 
claim  some  fugitive  red  slaves;,  that 
**  on  arriving  at  the  usual  mooring  place  in  that  river,  he  was  attacked 
by  a  vessel  flying  the   Spanish   flag,  and  was  unfortunate  enough  to  be 


POLITICAL  CONTROL.  535 

killod,  Tliose  with  him  begged  for  quarter,  whereupon  tlie  Spaniards 
took  all  their  merchandise,  and  told  them  that  they  had  orders  from 
the  Governor  of  Trinidad  to  stop  the  trade  in  that  river." 

In  1728  the  Minutes  of  the  Court  stated  (V.  C.  II,  82)  that 
"  the  Spaniards  of  the  Orinocque  had,  with  armed  force,  taken 
possession  of  a  Suriname  vessel  fishing  in  the  neighborhood  of  the 
aforesaid  river."  Thus  early  did  the  Spanish  assert  their  right  to 
the  exclusive  fishery  in  the  Orinoco  and  in  the  neighborhood  of 
its  mouth. 

In  1731  the  Court  referred  (V.  C.  II,  84)  to  "two  inhabitants 
of  this  colony  who,  their  goods  having  been  taken  from  them  " 
[in  the  Orinoco  for  violation  of  ti'ade  regulations]  "  and  they  sent 
off  in  a  small  boat,  have  perished." 

In  1734  the  rumor  first  came  that  the  Swedes  were  intending 
to  settle  in  Barima.  The  position  taken  by  the  two  colonies  re- 
spectively—the Spanish  and  the  Dutch— upon  this  occasion  is  sig- 
nificant. The  Spanish  Governor,  Don  Carlos  de  Sucre,  wrote  to 
Commandeur  Gelskerke  (V.  C.  II,  85)  that  "  he  has  brought  some 
troops  to  the  Orinoco  and  is  expecting  ten  or  twelve  more  barques 
with  soldiers,"  and  that  the  reason  for  sending  these  troops  was 
"  the  intention  of  the  Swedish  nation  to  establish  a  colony  in  the 
river  of  Barima,  situated  between  the  Orinoco  and  your  post 
Wacupo."  The  Spaniard  does  not  ask  the  Dutch  to  cooperate 
with  him.  He  does  not  treat  the  question  as  if  it  was  a  question 
that  concerned  Dutch  territorial  jurisdiction  at  all;  but  he  sug- 
gests that,  as  the  Dutch  probably  would  not  like  the  Swedes  for 
neighbors,  the  Commandeur  might  be  willing  to  inform  him  (the 
writer)  of  any  news  that  he  heard  with  reference  to  the  project. 
His  words  were  (zc?.,  86): 

"  And,  being  nnable  to  persuade  himself  that  the  Dutch  nation  could 
tolerate  in  their  neighborhood  a  nation  so  proud  and  haughty  as  the  Swedish, 
he  in  good  faith  and  frankly  declares  this  to  be  the  cause  of  his  arriving 
with  so  much  soldiery,  at  the  same  time  earnestly  requesting  me,  if  I  should 
have  received  any  advice  thereof,  to  be  so  good  as  to  share  it  with  him." 


53(J  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

Gelskerke's  comment  upon  this  to  the  Company  was  that— 

"  If  the  Swedes  should  undertake  to  try  to  establish  themselves  between 
the  Orinoco  and  this  colony  on  your  territory,  it  would  be  my  duty  to  pre- 
vent this,  which  could  hardly  be  done  with  any  chance  of  success  with  the 
small  military  force  we  have  here." 

Gelskerke  gives  no  intimation  as  to  what  the  territory  so  re- 
ferred to  is;  indeed,  the  words  "  on  your  territory  "  would  appear 
to  refer  to  "  this  colony,"  or  possibly  to  the  Pomeroon  or  Mo- 
ruca,  but  certainly  not  to  any  place  west  of  that  point. 

The  Company,  however,  paid  no  attention  to  his  suggestion 
further  than  to  say  that  "  they  can  in  case  of  necessity  aid  you  be- 
times with  men  and  material  of  war"  (B.  C.  II,  19). 

Far  different  was  the  action  taken  by  Spain  on  December  10, 
1734,  when  a  royal  order  (V.  C.  II,  283),  addressed  to  Sucre,  refer- 
ring to  the  representation  made  with  respect  "to  the  settlement 
which  the  Swedes  were  attempting  to  make  in  River  Barima," 
directed: 

"  Having  considered  the  matter  in  my  Council  of  the  Indies,  anc 
taken  the  advice  of  my  Attorney- General  thereupon,  I  hereby  commant 
you  that  with  what  people  you  have  and  with  the  Capuchin  Missions^ 
you  take  all  proper  measures  to  prevent  the  settlement  attempted  by  th« 
Swedish  nation  from  being  established." 

In  1742  Storm  van  's  Grravesande  became  Commandeur  in  Es; 
sequibo,  and  he  continued  to  occupy  that  position  for  thirty  years, 
It  was  at  Storm's  suggestion  and  in  consequence  of  his  persistent 
references  to  the  subject  that  the  West  India  Company  first  coU' 
ceivod  the  idea  of  any  territorial  claim  outside  of  the  Dutcl: 
settlements;  but  they  never  were  willing  to  adopt  and  carry  ou 
Storm's  recommendation  in  the  matter.  It  was  during  this  perioc 
also,  more  than  in  any  other,  that  the  Spaniards  maintained  ar 
effective  supervision  and  control  of  the  coast  territory,  and  a  larg< 
part  of  the  evidence  of  this  is  to  be  found  in  the  reports  made  bj 
Storm  himself  to  the  Company.  He  first  brought  up  the  subjec 
in  1T47.  In  a  letter  of  that  year,  referring  to  the  territor 
between  Orinoco  and  Moruca,  he  said  (V.  C.  II,  98): 


POLITICAL   CONTROL.  537 

"But  the  undertakings  of  the  Spaniards  go  so  far  that,  if  proper  pro- 
vision be  not  made  in  that  matter,  it  may  cause,  in  course  of  time,  the 
total  ruin  of  the  colony."' 

Notwithstanding  this  opinion,  both  the  Company  and  Storm, 
as  has  been  seen,  were  strongly  favorable  to  putting  the  trade  be- 
tween Essequibo  and  Orinoco  in  the  hands  of  the  Spaniards  to  be 
carried  on  at  Essequibo  or  its  frontiers  (V.  C.  II,  101),  and  in  1749 
Storm  described  the  frequent  goings  and  comings  of  these 
Spanish  traders  (V.  C.  II,  102). 

About  this  very  period  the  trade  of  the  Dutch  in  Orinoco  was 
under  the  closest  prohibition.  The  Acting  Commandeur  reported, 
in  1751  (V.  C.  II,  108),  that  Marcand  and  Schutz,  "being  on  a 
journey  to  Orinoco  to  buy  tobacco,  ^^  *  *  they  both  had  the 
misfortune,  the  former  in  April  and  the  latter  in  May,  to  be  taken 
by  the  Spaniards." 

No  complaint  or  comment  seems  to  have  been  made  on  this  act 
by  the  Commandeur. 

In  1752  Storm  reported  (V.  C.  II,  109)  that 

''  the  Spaniards  have  attacked  and  driven  away  the  Caribs  below  Orono- 
que,  and  these  have  all  retreated  to  our  side,  and  thus  their  number  has 
considerably  increased." 

In  1754  Storm  reported  (V.  C.  II,  116),  speaking  of  the  activity 
of  the  Spanish  forces  in  Orinoco, 

"that  three  barques  and  nine  large  canoes  have  arrived  there  and  have 
sailed  up  to  the  fort,  and  that  the  Surinam  wanderers  and  most  of  the 
Carib  Indians  have  retired  from  Barima,  and  have  departed  to  the  Wayne." 

In  1755  Storm  reported  (V.  C.  II,  119): 

"The  Postholder  of  Marocco  has  come,  and  has  brought  me  a  letter 
from  a  missionary  Father  written  to  him  from  Orinoque,  wherein  he  has 
requested  him  to  deliver  up  and  send  to  him  some  Indians  of  the  Chiama 
nation,  by  us  called  Shiamacottee,  and  who  have  already  (over  ten  years) 
been  dwelling  under  the  Post,  adding  that,  in  case  of  reluctance,  he  would 
'  ome  with  sufficient  force  to  fetch  them,  and  take  them  away  in  chains. 

Ie  letter  has  appeared  to  me  a  very  surprising  one." 


538  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

In  1758  Storm  reported  (V.  C.  II,  123)  that 

The  adventurer  Courthial,  "having  undertaken  another  voyage  to  the 
Spanish  coast,  in  whicli  he  was  very  successful,  was  watched  for  by  the 
Spaniards  as  he  came  down  the  Orinoco,  and  deprived  of  all  he  had.  He 
and  his  crew  (with  the  exception  of  two,  who  are  prisoners)  managed  to 
escape  overland,  and  have  now  arrived  here.  The  man  is  almost  entirely 
ruined." 

In  the  same  letter  he  reported  the  arrival  of  some  mules  from 
Orinoco,  and  stated  that 

"...     no  more  can  be  got  for  a  long  while,  because  one  of  H. 
M.'s  ships  is  daily  expected  from  Spain,  which  will  stay  at  anchor  in  the 
mouth  of  the  Orinoco.     Thus  the  trade  is  stopped  and  even  the  salters  J 
will  have  to  keep  away  from  there  until  things  take  a  different  look." 

In  1750  he  reported  (V.  C.  II,  J  33): 

"  Two  well-armed  boats  have  been  kept  cruising  up  and  down  tin 
river  [Orinoco],  whereby  the  Spanish  trade  is  at  present  wholly  blocked. '^ 

In  1760  the  effect  of  the  patrolling  of  the  Orinoco  and  the 
Barima  became  apparent  in  the  capture  by  Lieutenant  Flores  o( 
the  five  boats  taken  in  those  waters.  The  immediate  instructions 
under  which  Flores  was  acting  in  this  cruise  will  be  remembered, 
and  the  fact  that  he  received  the  instructions  is  important,  for  it 
will  be  found  that  during  the  rest  of  this  period  the  Spaniards,  in 
carrying  out  police  authority  in  Barima,  were  very  active,  but 
that  the  Director-General  always  speaks  of  their  acts  as  if  they 
were  the  unauthorized  acts  of  private  individuals,  mere  raids  or 
forays.  Thus,  he  is  constantly  referring  to  what  is  done  by  "  th( 
Spaniards,"  and  often  describes  them  as  "privateers,"  oi^ 
'*  pirates."  In  all  this  the  Dutch  Governor  was  entirely  incorrect. 
The  Spaniards  who  made  the  seizures  in  the  Barima,  who  patrolled 
the  rivers,  and  who  exercised  control  over  the  district  were  com 
missioned  officers  of  the  Spanish  Government,  belonging  to  the 
army  or  the  coast  guard,  and  acting  directly  under  the  orders  of 
the  Commandant  of  Guayana.  The  instructions  of  this  Com- 
mandant, Don  Juan  Valdes,  who  is  entitled  "  Captain  Warden  of 
this  fort  on  behalf  of  His  Majesty,  Judge  General  of  Confisca- 


POLITICAL   CONTROL.  539 

tions  in  this  Province  of  Guiana  and  Commandant  of  the  forces 
therein,  &c.,"  to  the  Lieutenant  of  Infantry  Don  Juan  de  Flores 
are  given  in  B.  C.  II,  187.  From  these  it  appears  that  some  fugi- 
tive poitos,  escaping  from  the  clutches  of  Surinam  slave  traders  in 
Barima,  had  reported  that  these  slave  traders  were  there  and  were 
engaged  in  their  traffic.  Flores  was  accordingly  ordered  by  the 
Commandant  to  arrest  them. 

Owing  to  the  fact  that  Flores  met  a  number  of  boats  there  en- 
gaged in  salting  and  fishing,  some  of  them  in  the  Orinoco  and 
some  in  the  Barima,  where  it  was  likewise  prohibited,  his  men 
were  needed  to  man  the  prizes,  and  he  was  unable  to  go  after  the 
slave  traders,  who,  as  stated  in  the  affidavit  of  the  half-breed 
Yana  (B.  C.  II,  194),  were  from  Surinam.  The  latter  therefore 
escaped. 

No  more  clear  and  distinct  act  of  territorial  authority  could  be 
conceived  of  than  these  acts  of  Flores  in  the  Barima.  The  cargoes 
of  the  boats  were  sold  for  account  of  the  treasury  (V.  C.  II,  337); 
the  boats  were  sent  to  the  treasury  stores  (V.  C.  II,  338)  and  sub- 
sequently sold  for  account  of  the  State  (V.  C.  II,  340).  The 
papers  show  that  the  whole  business  from  beginning  to  end  was  a 
purely  official  transaction.  No  protest  was  ever  made  by  Storm 
in  reference  to  these  seizures,  although  in  the  general  remon- 
strance drawn  up  by  the  Dutch  Government  in  1769  a  reference  is 
made  to  the  prohibition  of  the  Orinoco  fishery. 

In  1762  Storm  reported  (V.  C.  II,  148)  that  the  Essequibo  set- 
tler Dudonjon,  having  been  sent  to  Orinoco  to  claim  runaway 
slaves,  "  the  Commandant  there,  Don  Juan  Diaz  Valdez,  not  only 
refused  to  give  him  a  hearing,  but  forbade  him  to  set  foot  on 
shore,  ordering  him  to  depart  at  once." 

In  August  of  the  same  year,  Spoors,  the  Secretary  in  Esse- 
quibo reported  (V.  C.  II,  150)  that 

"  The  Director  Pipersberg  came  and  reported  to  me  that  his  Salter's 
canoe  had  been  seized  by  the  Spaniards  near  the  River  of  Weyne,  with 
eight  and  ono-half  hogsheads  of  salt-water  fish." 


5^0  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

It  was  just  at  this  time  that  the  warning  was  given  by  the 
Warows  of  Trinidad  of  the  intention  of  the  Spaniards  to  make  an 
attack  upon  the  post  at  Momca,  and  that,  in  consequence  of 
which,  the  Postholder  left  the  post  and  was  "staying  up  in  the 
bush  through  fear  of  the  Spaniards,  and  that  he  had  sent  to  the 
post  for  his  belongings." 

In  1763  Storm  reported  (V.  C.  II,  153): 

"  The  uncertainty  of  how  tliey  would  be  treated  by  the  Spanish  is  the 
reason  why  I  have  this  year  sent  no  boats  belonging  either  to  the  Com- 
pany or  to  myself  out  salting  to  the  coast  of  Orinoque." 

This  is  the  sort  of  Dutch  control  upon  which  Great  Britain 
now  bases  a  claim  to  the  territory  at  Barima  Point  and  the  mouth 
of  the  Amakuru  on  the  banks  of  the  Orinoco. 

In  1765  so  little  "control"  did  the  Dutch  exercise  in  Barima 
that  Storm  reported  (V.  C.  II,  161)  that  some  canoes  filled  with 
Spaniards  were  even  in  the  Pomeroon  evidently  for  hostile  pur- 
poses. 

In  1766  the  Rosen  affair  occurred,  which  resulted  in  the  order 
of  the  Court  forbidding  Dutch  colonists  thereafter  to  stay  in 
Barima.  This  has  already  been  fully  considered.  The  order  of 
the  Court  was  expressly  based  on  the  probability  that  the  acts 
of  the  colonists  would  involve  the  colony  in  difficulties  with 
Spain.  This  is  another  example  of  "  Dutch  control  of  the 
Barima." 

In  1767  Storm  wrote  to  the  Officers  of  the  Militia  in  Essequibo 
(V.  C.  II,  173): 

**The  Postholder  can  hardly  maintain  himself,  through  Pomeroon, 
overland." 

In  1768  occurred  the  destruction  of  the  La  Riviere  plantation. 
This  was  described  by  Storm  in  his  report  of  June  1  of  that  year 
(V.  C.  II,  176)  by  the  statement  that 

'•  our  rascally  deserters  have  arrived  in  Barima  with  a  few  Spaniards,  and 
Imve  robbed  the  Widow  La  Riviere  of  all  her  sUves  and  property," 


POLITICAL  CONTROL.  541 

What  really  happened  was  this:  the  seizures  were  made  by 
"Don  Francisco  Cierto,  Captain  of  the  Company  of  Pioneers,  and 
consequently  of  the  Coast  Guard  which  protects  the  ports  of  this 
said  Province  "  (V.  C.  II,  301),  by  order  of  Centurion,  the  Com- 
mandant-General of  Guayana.     The  report  of  Cierto  says  (7c?.)- 

"That  the  Commandant-General  there  present  having  received  in- 
formation that  in  the  Creek  called  the  Creek  of  Barima,  which  is  close 
to  the  great  mouth  of  the  Kiver  Orinoco  and  falls  into  it,  sundry  Dutch 
families  were  established,  despatched  him  with  instructions  to  Avarn  them 
once,  twice  and  thrice  to  quit  the  whole  of  that  territory  because  if  be- 
longed to  the  said  Province,  in  virtue  whereof  the  Declarant  went  in  his 
vessel,  with  another  accompanying  him,  in  search  of  the  said  Creek,  and 
having  arrived  at  tlie  mouth  he  saw  several  Indians  of  the  Carib  nation, 
and  these,  before  the  Declarant  could  reach  the  establishments  and  farms 
of  the  said  foreigners,  gave  them  intelligence,  and  thereupon  they  took 
to  flight  without  giving  an  opportunity  for  the  notification;  and  they 
only  found  the  deserted  houses  and  the  eflfects,  implements  and  utensils 
contained  in  the  inventory,  which  they  put  on  board  the  two  vessels  and 
then  set  fire  to  the  said  houses,  in  order  that  they  should  not  form  settle- 
ments in  future,  and  destroyed  the  farms  as  far  as  they  possibly  could." 

The  concluding  **  Auto"  in  the  series  of  Spanish  records  is  as 
follows  (V.  C.  II,  864): 

"  In  this  City  of  Guayana,  on  the  19th  April,  1708,  We:  Don  Manuel 
Centurion  Guerrero  dc  Torres,  Captain  of  the  Royal  Artillery  Corps  and 
Commandant-General  of  this  Province,  and  Don  Andres  de  Oleaga,  sole 
Royal  Officer  therein,  proprietor  having  seen  these  '  Autos  '  and  the  result 
of  the  four  Declarations  therein,  and  whereas  the  Dutch  have  unwar- 
rantably sought  to  take  possession  of  the  Terntorij  of  Barima,  Jurisdic- 
tion of  this  Province,  where  they  had  estabhshed  farms  and  houses  to 
carry  on  the  exportation  of  woods  and  other  products  in  a  clandestine 
manner,  for  which  purpose,  according  to  information  received,  they  had 
likewise  gathered  together  certain  runaway  slaves,  fugitives  from  the 
Provinces  of  Cumanil  and  Caracas,  to  act  as  pilots,  and  point  out  the  law- 
less Spanish  subjects  who  only  occupy  themselves  in  carrying  on  clan- 
destine exportation  along  the  creeks  and  landing-places  which  are  out  o 
the  way  and  unknown;  Wherefore,  and  also  seeing  that  by  various  laws, 
and  the  most  recent  '  Cedulas '  issued  by  His  Majesty,  it  is  forbidden 
under  any  pretext  whatsoever  to  suffer  or  permit  foreigners  to  exercise 


542  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

thfi  freedom  of  establishing  themselves  in  these  dominions  by  establish- 
ing new  colonies,  considering  the  importance  thereof,  and  the  repeated 
piaiz  111,1  lie  Cedulas  which  prohibit  it,  we  have  had  to  declare  and  do  de- 
clare that  the  said  Dutch  by  the  crime  they  have  committed,  and  the  pen- 
alty tliey  have  incurred,  must  forfeit  the  implements  and  other  things 
which  they  were  found  to  possess,  and  which  were  brought  by  the  Captain 
of  the  Coastguard  Vessels." 

It  would  be  impossible  to  find  acts  of  a  more  formal,  official 
and  governmental  character  than  these,  nor  would  it  be  possible 
to  base  such  acts  more  distinctly  and  expressly  upon  rights  of  ter- 
ritorial jurisdiction.  No  protest  was  made  by  Storm  in  reference 
to  these  acts.  All  that  he  said  was  (V.  C.  II ,  176)  that  it  "  did 
not  matter  veiy  much,  because  I  had  strictly  forbidden  Jan  la 
Riviere  to  settle  between  Essequibo  and  Orinocque,  and  for  greater 
security  I  had  this  inserted  in  his  pass;  he  was  also  forbidden  by 
the  Court  to  settle  in  Barima." 

The  fact  was  that  Storm,  by  his  own  acts,  had  deliberately 
and  intentionally  tied  his  own  hands  in  the  matter,  and  he  mis- 
represented it  to  the  Company,  also  with  evident  intention,  as  a 
mere  raid  on  the  part  of  "  our  rascally  deserters,"  "with  a  few 
Spaniards."  How  much  the  deserters  had  to  do  with  it  appears 
from  the  Spanish  documents. 

In  accordance  with  this  deliberate  intention,  Storm  thereafter 
represents  all  the  acts  of  the  Spanish  in  the  Barima  as  being  done 
by  privateers  or  pirates,  occasionally  referring  to  the  vessels  as 
"  the  so-called  Coast  Guards  "  (V.  C.  II,  179). 

Possibly  this  may  have  been  suggested  to  him  by  the  fact 
that  a  seizure  was  in  fact  made  in  1762  by  a  Trinidad  privateer. 
The  vessel  seized  was  in  this  case  restored  by  the  Spanish  Gov- 
ernor—showing the  clear  distinction  between  authorized  and  un- 
authorized acts  in  the  view  of  both  parties.  The  vessels  from 
Orinoco  that  made  seizures  were  coastguard  vessels,  commissioned 
for  the  purpose  by  the  Government;  and  as  to  them,  while  Storm 
makes  many  lamentations,  he  never  disputes  the  right  of  Spain  to 
use  its  agents  for  this  purpose  in  the  territory  west  of  Moruca. 


POLITICAL  CONTROL.  543 

From  a  report  of  Centurion,  Commandant  of  Guayana,  made 

in  1770  (B.  C.  IV,  72),  it  appears  that  in  1767  the  Commandant 

had  equipped    several    "cruising  lanchas''''  for  the    purpose   of 

patrolling  the  Spanish  rivers,  and  he  refers  in  his  report  to  the 

captures  made  "in  the  three  years  that  the  privateers  for  this 

river  have  been  in  service  by  my  orders,"  The  v^'ord  "  privateers" 

used  here  in  the  English  translation  is  incorrect,  as  the  context 

shows  that  these  vessels  were  cruising  launches,  under  the  com- 

1   mand  of  Spanish  officers.    The  Spanish  words  are  lanchas  cor- 

\  sarias,  which  mean    "cruising  lanchas,^^  or  "cruisers,"  as  the 

^  same  word  is  correctly   translated    in  other  places    (B.    C.    IV, 

'  78),  where  Centurion  speaks  of  "some  Dutch  captured  with  their 

1  boat  by  our  cruisers  [coi^sarios]  in  the  Oiinoco  and  lately  brought 

to  this  capital." 

The  patrol  maintained  by  these  vessels  from  this  time  on  was 

constant.     In  1768  Storm  reported  (V.  C.  II,  177)  that  "a  Spanish 

privateer   "  [evidently  one    of   the    lanchas    corsarias] "    from 

Orinocque  cruising  along  our  coast  made  an  attempt  to  capture 

I  your  Lordship's  Salter  before  the  River  Wayni; "  and  he  added: 

"  They  are  not  content  with  most  unreasonably  keeping  our  runaway 
slaves  and  with  liindering  us  from  carrying  on  the  fishery  in  Orinocque, 
which  we  have  always  been  free  to  do,  but  they  now  wish  to  prevent  us 

'  from  salting  along  our  own  coasts,  and  will  in  this  manner  and  by  closing 
our  river,  and  no  boats  will  dare  to  go  out  any  more.     Is  this  proper 

I  behaviour  on  the  part  of  our  neighbors  and  allies  ?  " 

On  November  9,  1768  (V.  C.  II,  179),  he  wrote: 

"According  to  a  report  received  from  the  Postholder  of  Maroco 
j  yesterday  the  Governor  of  Orinocque  is  in  the  mouth  of  that  river  with 
I  one  large  and  one  small  boat,  both  armed,  and  it  is  reported  that  lie 
'  will  stay  tlicre  for  two  months,  for  what  reason  or  object  I  do  not  know." 

Here  was  a  case  at  last  where  Storm  could  not  dispute  the 
official  character  of  the  persons  exercising  dominion  in  behalf  of 
Spain.  Whatever  he  might  say  of  a  Lieutenant  of  Infantry,  a 
Captain  of  Pioneers,  or  the  Commander  of  a  Coastguard  vessel,  in 


I 


544  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

characterizing  them  as  "privateers"  or  "pirates,"  he  could  not 
deny  that  the  Governor  of  Orinoco  in  person  represented  the 
Royal  authority  of  Spain.  He  adds,  however,  that  he  is  there 
"for  what  reason  or  object  I  do  not  know."  One  would  think, 
from  the  citations  already  given  from  his  correspondence,  that  by 
this  time  Storm  might  have  known  pretty  well  for  what  purpose 
the  Governor  of  Orinoco  was  staying  for  two  months  "in  the 
mouth  of  that  river  with  one  large  and  one  small  boat,  both 
armed."  Certainly  the  reader  of  his  correspondence  has  no  diffi- 
culty in  determining.  It  only  adds  another  to  the  graphic  illus- 
trations which  this  correspondence  presents  of  the  evasive,  shifty 
and  cowardly  policy  of  the  Dutch  Governors  in  general  and  of 
Storm,  the  one  who  was  there  for  the  longest  time,  in  particular, 
in  their  dealings  with  this  territory,  which  they  never  settled, 
which  they  even  forbade  to  their  colonists  for  purposes  either  o] 
settlement  or  trade,  which  they  never  made  the  slightest  attemp 
or  movement  to  control  themselves,  and  as  to  which  they  nevei 
made  the  slightest  protest  against  Spanish  control. 

How  flimsy  was  Storm's  pretense  that  he  did  not  know  wha 
the  Governor  of  Orinoco  was  about,  is  shown  by  a  letter  writteij 
only  three  weeks  later,  on  November  28,  1768,  when  the  Zeelam 
Chamber  of  the  Company  wrote  (V.  C.  II,  180)  to  the  Director 
General: 

'*  Iix  the  mcuiitimc  the  loss  to  the  colony  of  the  fishery  in  Orinoco 
causes  us  no  slight  regret,  but  we  know  no  means  of  redress  against  this 
unless  the  people  in  the  colony  itself  should  be  able  to  suggest  some  mean 
of  retaliation." 

Early  in  1709  the  Royal  Accountant  in  Guayana  gave  a  list  o 
confiscations  and  seizures  made  in  the  Ornwco  and  Barima  b; 
"  cruising /awcAas."  These  included,  among  others,  an  Englisl 
sloop,  an  English  boat,  a  French  schooner,  a  French  sloop  an< 
schooner,  a  canoe  from  Essequibo,  a  felucca  from  Essequibo,  an< 
a  considerable  quantity  of  goods  from  various  places  (V.  Q 
II,  360). 


POLITICAL  CONTROL.  545 

In  another  letter  dated  March  10,  1T69,  to  the  Commandeur  in 
Demerara  (V.  C.  II,  183),  the  Director-General  said: 

"  I  have  this  moment  received  a  report  from  Mr.  Buisson  that  the 
Spaniards  are  carrying  off  the  Indians  from  Maroco  and  have  made  them- 
selves masters  of  the  post." 

What  actually  happened  is  described  in  a  letter  of  the  Di- 
rector-General, on  March  15,  1769  (V.  C.  II,  183),  stating  that: 

*'  The  Spaniards,  with  two  Capuchin  Fathers,  a  detachment  of 
soldiers,  and  a  large  party  of  armed  Waykiers,  were  capturing  and  taking 
away  as  prisoners  all  the  free  Indians  between  Barima  and  Pomaroon, 
and  that  they  had  actually  overpowered  the  Company's  trading  place, 
Marocco,  and  that  they  were  now  there.     .     .     . 

''They  have  captured  and  taken  away  all  our  people  that  were  on  the 
sea-coast.  The  Salter  of  Luyxbergen  has  luckily  escaped  them,  but  his 
Indians,  his  vessels,  two  large  canoes  and  three  single  canoes,  which  he 
had  got  by  barter,  they  have  taken  away.  They  of  Duynenberg  re- 
turned back  early  in  the  morning." 

The  Postholder  reported  that  they  had  stated  that  they  had 
orders  from  the  Governor.  He  also  reported  that  "  the  whole  of 
Wacupo  and  Corey  has  entirely  fled,"  meaning  the  Indians  about 
those  creeks  (V.  C.  II,  185). 

The  Dutch  Remonstrance  of  1769  to  the  Spanish  Government 
referred  to  the  acts  at  Moruca,  but  had  nothing  to  say  of  Barima. 

Not  only  were  the  Spanish  taking  their  own  fugitive  Indians 
from  the  neighborhood  of  Moruca,  but  they  had  formed  the  evi- 
dent intention  to  clear  the  Barima  of  intruders,  and  they  refused 
to  allow  even  the  recapture  of  fugitive  slaves,  which  had  up  to 
this  time  been  winked  at  or  overlooked  both  in  the  interior  and  in 
the  coast  territory. 

The  Postholder  reported  in  reference  to  these  matters  (V.  C. 
II,  168): 

"  There  is  a  man  gone  after  the  runaways  of  Mr.Volskow ;  he  has  luckily 

caught  them,  and  when  here,  coming  into  the  Savannah  of  Marocco,  the 

Spaniards  took  him,  loosed  the  slaves,  and  placed  the  fetters  on  him  and 

i  the  others  with  him.     But  a  boy  having  run  away  from  Miss  Persik,  came 


546  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

and  told  me  this,  and  also  that  they  will  come  again  to  come  and  fetch  the 
Indians  of  Pomaroon  and  the  remainder  of  those  who  were  here. 

*'  The  negro  J.  Breek,  his  vessel  and  people,  are  taken,  but  he  has  fled. 
Mr.  Trotz's  Creole  Adrian  is  taken.  They  have  plundered  Joseph  Wolff. 
Jan  Domburg  they  have  had  twice." 

On  March  16,  1769,  the  Director-General  wrote  to  the  Com- 
pany (V.  C.  II,  1S7): 

"  But,  my  lords,  allow  me  to  ask  what  is  now  to  be  done  to  get  food 
for  your  lordships'  slaves?  The  salting  is  now  entirely  stopped,  not  alone 
in  the  mouth  of  the  Orinocque,  where  we  had  carried  on  the  fishery  from 
time  immemorial,  but  there  are  neither  canoes  nor  corrials  to  be  got  for 
the  plantations  or  the  Fort  along  the  whole  of  the  sea-coast,  and  we  are 
shut  in  on  all  sides." 

In  a  letter  to  the  Director- General,  May  1,  1769,  M.  Buisson, 

Councilor  in  Essequibo,  reported  that  (V.  C.  II,  188), 

''  there  was  a  great  panic  in  Ituribisi,  through  the  Indians'  own  fear  that 
the  Spaniards  had  come  through  Pomeroon  and  seized  Jan  Baptist  and 
burned  his  house  and  were  kidnapping  the  Indians;  all  those  who  lived 
in  Ituribisi  fled  down-stream  upon  this  rumor. 

)|e  4!  >ls  *  4s  4!  4: 

"  As  for  the  Oaribs,  they  are,  it  seems,  abandoning  their  land  Barima, 
coming  every  day  up  to  P]8sequibo,  a  great  number  have  gone  up,  and' 
more  are  going  up  to-day,  and  they  will  then  begin  their  customary  mur- 
derous performances  above." 

In  a  letter  of  May,  1769  (V.  C.  II,  190)  to  the  Company  from 

the  Court  of  Policy  and  the  Director-General,  they  said: 

"  The  unexpected  invasion  of  the  Spaniards,  so  incompatible  Avith  th( 
law  of  nations  and  the  treaties  of  alliance,  calls  for  your  lordships'  most 
serious  consideration,  and  requires  a  speedy  resolution  for  redress.  Not 
only  is  the  colony  exposed  to  the  greatest  danger  from  Cajoeny  up  above, 
and  from  the  sea-coast  below,  the  plantations  being  continually  open  to 
pillage  and  plunder  (amongst  which  plunderers  the  principal  are  youi 
lordships'  runaway  slaves,  to  whom  all  the  paths,  holes,  and  corners  arc 
known),  but  our  fisheries  both  in  Orinocque  and  on  the  sea-coast  have 
been  entirely  knocked  on  the  head  and  lost,  and  your  lordship's  Post  a1 
Maroco  has  been  entirely  ruined,  all  the  Indians  who  still  remained  hav^ 
ing  fled,  and  none  now  remaining  round  or  near  the  Post;  those  in  Pome- 
roon have  also  departed  and  abandoned  their  dwellings,  with  the  excep- 


I 


POLITICAL  CONTROL.  547 

tion   of  the   Oaraibans,  who    hold  their  ground,  and  whom  up  to   the 
present  they  have  not  dared  to  insult." 

In  a  letter  to  the  Company  May  12,  1769  (V.  C.  II,  190),  the 
Director-General  lamented: 

''  What  a  pity  it  would  be  if  such  a  flourishing  colony  (such  as  this  is 
now  growing)  were  to  be  ruined  by  rogues  and  pirates,  as  must  inevitably 
be  the  case  if  no  powerful  measures  are  adopted  to  resist  the  pirates  from 
Orinocque  and  made  them  abandon  their  expeditions  ! 

"According  to  the  last  reports  from  the  Postholder  and  from  the 
Caraibans,  they  are  still  all  in  Barima,  having  sent  their  prisoners  to  Ori- 
nocque, and  they  threaten  to  come  again  at  an  early  date.     .     .     . 

"The  said  Owl  .  .  .  told  me  that  the  Spaniards  in  Barima,  having 
been  reinforced  by  another  boat,  had  at  last  attacked  the  Caraibans  them- 
selves, captured  several  of  the  same,  carried  them  off,  burnt  their  houses 
and  ruined  their  plantations;  that  they  continued  to  make  raids  all  around 
and  along  the  sea-coast,  and  that  they  were  making  preparations  to  come 
to  Powaron,  and  that  they  said  that  when  they  had  finished  there  they 
would  come  to  Essequibo  and  attack  the  plantations  and  even  the  Fort  itself. 

'*  I  regard  the  latter  as  a  vain  Spanish  boast,  but  they  are  quite  capable 
of  doing  all  the  rest.  Things  have  now  actually  reached  such  a  stage  that 
we  can  return  violence  with  violence,  but  is  it  not  a  sad  thing,  my  lords, 
that  we  have  such  a  weak  garrison  and  not  six  men  among  them  upon 
whom  we  can  place   the  least  reliance  ?" 

He  added : 

"  The  depredations  of  the  Spaniards  from  Barima  to  Powaron  contin- 
uing daily,  we  must  acknowledge  that  they  are  capable  of  anything,  and 
that  we  must  expect  all  kinds  of  violent  and  piratical  acts  from  them." 

Such  was  Storm's  characterization  of  the  acts  of  the  Spanish 
Government  in  exercising  jurisdiction  and  control  over  the  terri- 
tory which  it  claimed  as  its  own,  and  whose  claim  nobody  disputed. 
In  view  of  the  presence  of  the  Governor  himself  for  two  months 
in  the  lower  Orinoco,  at  its  mouth,  Storm  might  on  this  occasion 
have  omitted  his  usual  epithet  of  "rogues and  pirates." 

The  reports  of  Spanish  acts  of  dominion  in  Barima  continue. 

On  July  31,  1769,  the  Director-General  informed  the  Company 

(V.  C.  II,  197): 

"  Three  excellent  slaves  of  John  Liot,  carpenters,  have  run  away  to 
Orinoco ;  he  has  been  in  pursuit,  but  was  compelled  to  return,  the  Span- 


■ 


548  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

iards  (so  he  says)  having  followed  to  beyond  Pomeroon.  The  man  whom 
Vulskow  had  sent  in  pursuit  of  his  slaves,  and  who,  as  I  had  the  honor  to 
inform  you  in  my  preceding  letter,  had  been  seized  and  put  in  chains  by 
the  Spaniards,  has  come  back. 

He  told  me  that  he  had  been  treated  very  badly  as  soon  as  he  arrived 
in  Orinoco;  that  the  Governor  had  sold  the  slaves." 

It  is  a  most  significant  fact  that  while  the  Dutch  in  their 
Second  Remonstrance  complain  of  the  prohibition  of  the  fishery, 
which  they  allege  had  been  theirs  from  time  immemorial,  of  the 
capture  of  a  fishing  vessel  off  the  mouth  of  the  Waini,  of  the  at- 
tack on  Moruca,  and  of  the  failure  to  seize  and  return  fugitive 
slaves  arriving  at  the  Orinoco  settlements,  they  say  nothing  of  | 
Spanish  acts  of  dominion  in  Barima. 

The  remonstrance  of  the  Dutch  Government  was  of  no  avail. 
On  the  30th  of  November,  1Y69,  Storm  reported  (V.  0.  II,  213), 
that 

"  The  Spaniards  continue  to  cruise  along  the  coast,  so  that  there  is  no 
chance  of  getting  anything  salted  for  the  plantations,  which  does  both 
the  Honorable  Company  and  the  planters  a  great  deal  of  harm." 

In  letter  of  November  30,  1769  (V.  C.  II,  213),  to  the  Company, 
the  Director-General  said : 

"  The  actions  of  that  proud  nation  are  really  unbearable,  and  the  more 
so  because  they  presuppose  a  considerable  measure  of  contempt,  since  the 
Spaniards  in  Orinocque  must  be  fully  convinced  that  if  we  chose  to  use 
our  power  with  our  Indians  we  could  make  the  whole  of  Orinocque  too 
hot  for  them." 

He  added: 

**  Meanwhile  our  fisheries  are  ruined,  and  we  have  lost  all  our  runa- 
way slaves.  The  slaves  cannot  live  and  work  without  rations,  and  three 
pounds  of  fish  once  a  fortnight  is  really  not  much.  This  has  now  to  b< 
bought  from  the  English.  On  the  18th  I  had  to  buy  six  barrels  of  cod; 
and  if  the  English  were  not  to  come  here,  the  colony  would  be  unfor- 
tunate indeed;  this  is  very  costly,  too,  both  for  the  Company  and  tlu 
planters." 


POLITICAL  CONTROL.  549 

In  a  letter  of  December  3,  1769  (V.  C.  II,  214),  the  Councilor 
in  Essequibo  reported  to  the  Director-General: 

'*  I  can  uot  neglect  to  communicate  to  Your  Excellency  that  Pedro 
Sanchos  has  come  from  Orinoco  with  the  bad  news  that  in  a  month  or  six 
weeks  2  boats  will  come  with  as  many  as  50  or  GO  men  to  kidnap  the 
Indians  as  far  as  in  Pomeroon,  and  then,  I  fear,  plantations  will  surely  be 
pillaged;  for  this  Governor  sets  his  boundaries  as  far  as  at  the  bank  of 
Oene." 

On  December  21,  1769,  the  Director- General,  in  a  letter  to  the 
Company  (V.  C.  II,  214),  said: 

"  I  take  this  opportunity  of  informing  your  lordships  that  Pedro  San- 
chez having  been  in  chains  in  Orinocque  for  some  months,  had  the  good 
fortune  to  escape.  He  has  informed  me  that  two  privateers  are  again 
fitted  out,  with  a  much  stronger  crew  than  the  former  one,  and  that  in 
about  five  or  six  weeks  from  now  they  would  come  to  Maroco  and,  fur- 
ther, into  Pomeroon  to  carry  off  all  the  Indians  whom  they  could  get, 
and  that  they  would  probably  come  as  far  as  the  mouth  of  this  river." 

In  a  letter  to  the  Company,  July  30,  1770  (V.  C.  II,  216),  the 

Director- General  reported: 

"  The  fishery  in  Orinocque  still  being  closed,  I  am  compelled  to  buy 
cod  for  the  plantations  and  for  the  rations  of  the  slaves." 

August  18,  1770,  the  Director-General  reported  to  the  Com- 
pany (V.  C.  II,  216): 

"Young  Mr.  Tulleken,  having  asked  for  a  permit  to  go  to  Maroco, 
and  having  obtained  the  same,  I  now  hear  that  he  went  farther,  and  that 
he  was  arrested  and  is  now  a  prisoner  in  Orinocque." 

In  a  letter  to  the  Company,  January  6,  1772  (V.  C.  II,  218),  the 
Director- General,  complaining  of  the  refusal  of  the  Governor  of 
Orinoco  to  make  restitution  of  runaway  slaves  who  escape  into 
his  territory,  said : 

"  The  former  Postholders  in  Maroco  were  able  to  do  something  to 
arrest  the  progress  of  this  evil,  they  having  at  least  six  or  seven  hundred 
Indians  around  that  Post,  some  of  whom  they  could  always  have  out  at  sea, 
but  the  unauthorized  attacks  of  the  Spaniards  have  driven  these  natives 
away,  and  the  Spaniards  even  came  to  the  Post,  as  your  lordships  know, 
sword  in  hand,  to  drive  away  or  carry  off  the  few  that  still  remained,  and 
succeeded  only  too  well  in  doing  so." 


i 


550  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

This  does  not  speak  well  for  Dutch  control  of  the  Indians.  If 
such  was  Dutch  control  and  protection  of  the  Indians  at  a  Dutch 
"post"  in  Moruca,  what  must  it  have  been  in  the  territory 
stretcbinj?  out  from  100  to  200  miles  to  the  westward? 

So  in  the  next  letter  to  the  Company,  September  30,  1774  (V. 

C.  II,  222),  the  Director-General  reported: 

"  We  have  been  continually  annoyed  by  the  Spaniards,  who,  to  the 
number  of  forty,  recently  came  down  as  far  as  the  Post  of  Maroco,  carry- 
ing off  with  violence  or  killing  all  the  free  Indians  in  those  parts,  by 
which  these  people  who  are  of  such  advantage  to  our  colony  are  at  once 
driven  out  of  our  land,  they  fleeing  in  whole  troops  to  the  river 
Corentyn." 

On  October  11,  177d,  the  Postholder  in  Moruca  wrote  to  the 
Director-General  (V.  C.  II,  228); 

**  1'his  serves  to  inform  your  Honour  that  on  the  8th  of  this  month  the 
Spanish  Captain  Mattheo,  having  with  him  fifty  men  .  .  .  [have 
been  here],  and  taken  away  all  the  Indians  and  boats,  going  as  far  as  a 
distance  of  more  than  two  hours  below  the  Post;  they  have  even  carried 
off  the  Indians  who  have  come  hither  to  lay  out  plantations."    .     .     . 

"  So  that  there  is  no  longer  an  Indian  to  be  found  in  these  parts.  The 
Spanish  Captain  said  that  they  had  come  to  look  for  the  Indians  who  had 
killed  the  Spaniards,  and  that  they  had  come  in  two  large  vessels  lying  at 
Biejarra  [Biara]  at  the  mouth  of  the  Hittaba,  [Itabo]  and  that  he,  the 
Captain,  had  been  sent  out  from  those  vessels,  and  he  further  said  that 
his  lord  and  master  would  shortly  set  a  guard  in  the  arm  of  the  Weene 
called  the  Barmani,  and  that  the  whole  of  Maroekka  belonged  to  the  Span- 
iards." 

"The  Spanish  Captain  Mattheo,"  referred  to  for  the  first  time 
in  the  letter  last  cited,  was  Don  Mateo  Beltran,  for  more  than  ten 
years  Captain  in  the  Royal  coast  guard  on  duty  in  the  Barima  and 
Orinoco.  He  is  frequently  referred  to  in  later  letters  of  the 
Director-General,  who  apparently  thought  that  he  was  a  species 
of  "  pirate";  in  other  places  he  is  called  a  "privateer,"  and  on 
one  occasion  the  Commandeur  of  Essequibo  expressed  doubt  as  to 
whether  he  had  a  commission  (V.  C.  II,  236). 

Beltran,  however,  was  neither  a  pirate  nor  a  privateer.    In  a 


POIJTICAL  CONTROL.  551 

journal  of  one  of  his  cruises  (V.  C.  II,  442),  he  shows  exactly  what 
his  relation  was  to  the  Spanish  authorities,  and  also  gives  a  de- 
scription of  the  cruise  which  may  be  taken  as  typical  of  his  regu- 
lar occupation  of  patrolling  the  Barima,  Waini,  Amakura,  and 
lower  Orinoco.  The  importance  of  this  document  as  indicating 
Beltran's  authority  and  the  nature  of  the  control  exercised  through 
him  was  recognized  by  Her  Majesty's  Government,  in  that  it  was 
one  of  the  few  documents  for  the  original  of  which  they  made  a 
call,  under  the  provisions  of  the  Treaty. 

The  journal  opens  by  the  statement  (June  23,  1785): 

"  Having  left  this  capital  [Angostura]  by  order  of  the  Governor  and 
Commander-General  Don  Miguel  Marmion,  steering  in  a  straight  course 
to  the  great  mouth  of  the  Orinoco,  from  thence  passing  into  the  Barima 
creek,  on  the  same  day,  at  ten  o'clock  at  night,  we  arrived  at  the  Port  of 
San  Miguel." 

On  the  following  day  Beltran  arrived  at  the  Presidio,  and  pre- 
pared the  cartridges  for  the  cannon  and  put  the  arms  in  order. 
Thence  he  set  out,  having  received  an  Indian,  in  addition  to  his 
force,  from  the  Commandant,  Don  Antonio  de  Perella. 

Arriving  at  the  Portuguese  Islands,  Don  Mateo  learned  of  a 
schooner  fishing  in  the  mouth  of  the  Waini,  and  proceeded  on  his 
cruise,  meeting  occasionally  with  Indians  from  the  missions,  some 
of  whom  he  took  on  board  of  his  vessel. 

One  of  the  parties  to  which  he  refers  was  an  expedition  com- 
posed of  four  canoes  of  mission  Indians,  under  the  command  of 
the  gunner  of  the  Coast  Guard,  who  was  also  patrolling  "  by 
order  of  the  Commander." 

After  passing  the  patrol  boats  of  the  gunner,  he  continued 
down  the  river,  visiting  the  lowest  island  in  the  Orinoco,  Can- 
cre  jo,  directly  opposite  the  mouth  of  the  Barima,  where  he  passed 
the  night. 

At  Amakuru  he  sent  for  three  Indian  chiefs,  two  of  whom 
lived  between  Amakuru  and  Barima,  and  gave  them  some  orders. 

On  the  29th  of  June,  having  been  out  just  a  week,  Beltran  an- 


552  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

chored  in  the  Barima,  and  sent  out  the  coxswain  in  a  canoe  with 
eight  scouts  to  patrol  the  river.  The  coxswain  and  his  patrol 
were  gone  all  day,  and  upon  their  return  reported  that  they  had 
found  three  canoes  "concealed  in  the  bushes,  where  some  Guaru- 
ano  Indians  had  a  hut  inland." 

Beltran  thereupon  ascended  some  sixty  or  more  miles  up  the 
river,  passed  through  the  Mora  Passage  to  the  mouth  of  the  Waini, 
but  found  nothing  but  the  places  where  the  Dutch  had  been  fish- 
ing and  salting  and  gathering  thatch,  but  the  vessel  was  gone. 

Informing  himself  wherever  he  went  from  the  Indian  chiefs,  as 
to  the  condition  of  affairs  in  Barima,  he  heard  that  some  Holland- 
ers had  some  days  previously  come  down  with  a  few  pottos  to  the 
headwaters  of  the  Barima,  and  that  they  had  taken  them  to  Esse- 
quibo. 

Returning  down  the  Barima,  Beltran  went  to  the  mouth  of  the 
Aratura,  in  the  lower  Orinoco,  and  stretched  across  the  Boca  de 
Navios  to  the  islands,  passing  the  night  at  Loran,  the  large  island 
next  but  one  to  Cancrejo. 

On  the  8th  of  July,  in  the  evening,  he  arrived  at  the  Presidio, 
where  he  awaited  letters  from  the  Commandant;  whence,  on  the 
13th,  he  returned  to  the  capital,  having  been  gone  altogether  for 
three  weeks. 

The  above  narrative  by  Beltran  of  a  three- weeks'  cruise,  may 
fairly  be  taken  as  an  example  of  all  his  numerous  expeditions. 
It  does  away  entirely  with  the  suggestion  that  he  was  not  the  au- 
thorized agent  of  the  Spanish  Government.  He  was  as  much  an 
officer  of  that  Government  as  Cierto,  or  Flores,  or  the  Com- 
mandant himself.  He  starts  under  the  orders  of  Marmion,  the 
Governor;  he  has  his  cannon  put  in  order  at  the  fort  at  Presidio 
and  fills  up  his  detachment  from  the  force  under  the  Commandant, 
and  he  returns  at  the  end  of  his  cruise  to  the  Presidio,  where  he 
awaits  orders  from  the  Commander-in-Chief.  In  the  meantime  he 
patrols  the  whole  coui-se  of  the  Orinoco  River  to  its  mouth,  in- 
cluding the  large  islands  in  the  neighborhood  of  Barima  Point; 


POLITICAL  CONTROL.  553 

issues  orders  to  the  chiefs  living  on  the  Amakuru;  patrols  the 
Bariraa  for  sixty  miles  from  its  mouth;  visits  the  Waini  for  the 
purpose  of  apprehending  vessels  engaged  in  the  fishery,  contrary 
to  the  prohibitions  of  the  Spanish  Government,  and  finding 
nothing  which  calls  for  immediate  attention,  he  returns. 

This  was  Beltran's  occupation  during  the  whole  ten  years, 
from  1775  to  1785,  at  the  beginning  of  which  period,  in  1775,  he  is 
first  referred  to  as  "Captain  Mattheo"by  the  Director-General 
of  Essequibo,  although  the  Director-General  seems  to  attach  more 
importance  to  the  rumored  presence  with  the  Spanish  force  of 
some  stray  deserter  from  his  own  garrison  than  he  does  to  that 
the  Spanish  Captain. 

The  journal  of  Beltran  also  shows  what  was  the  nature  of  the 
Spanish  patrol  prior  to  1775,  when  Flores  and  Cierto  were  in  com- 
mand of  the  coast-guard  vessels  {lanchas  corsarias),  whose  move- 
ments were  precisely  similar  to  those  described  in  the  Diary,  and 
included  the  control  of  the  rivers  and  the  seizure  of  vessels  and  of 
persons  not  only  in  the  interior  of  Barima,  but  in  the  mouth  of 
the  Orinoco  and  Waini.  It  explains  the  meaning  of  all  those  re- 
ports of  Storm,  which  month  after  month  describe  the  presence 
of  the  Spanish  launches  in  Barima  and  Waini,  and  even  in  the 
Moruca  itself. 

In  1779  Don  Jose  Felipe  de  Inciarte  was  ordered  to  make  an 
exploration  of  all  the  land  to  the  east  of  the  lower  Orinoco,  in- 
cluded under  the  general  name  of  Barima  (V.  C.  II,  434),  and  was 
engaged  in  carrying  it  out  during  the  greater  part  of  the  summer 
and  autumn  of  that  year.  He  traversed  and  surveyed  in  detail 
the  Barima,  the  Aruka,  the  Mora  Passage,  the  Waini,  the 
Barama,  the  Baramani  with  the  various  creeks  at  its  head,  the 
Biara  and  the  Assacatta,  including  the  itabo  running  through  the 
savanna,  and  finally  the  Moruca,  and  advised  the  establishing 
of  a  fort  in  the  immediate  neighborhood  of  the  Moruca  post  (V. 
C.  II,  434-8). 

Inciarte's  report  was  made  direct  to  the  King,  and  in  conse- 


I 


554  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

quence  of  it  a  royal  order  was  issued  to  him,  charging  him  with 
the  "  mission  of  occupying  and  populating  the  lands  described  in 
his  report,"  and  of  erecting  two  forts  on  the  Moruca. 

The  order,  however,  owing  to  various  delays,  had  not  yet  been 
carried  out  when  the  Revolution  broke  out  in  Venezuela. 

In  the  meantime  Beltran  continued  to  be  employed  on  the 
duties  which  had  been  assigned  to  him  in  patrolling  the  Barima, 
and  from  time  to  time  the  reports  of  the  Director- General  show 
his  activity. 

On  September  23,  17T9,  the  Director-General  reported  to  the 
Company  (V.  C.  II,  236): 

''Having  thus  replied  to  your  greatly  esteemed  resolutions  on  my  be- 
half, I  take  the  liberty  to  inform  you  that  three  weeks  ago  a  party  of 
about  80  Spaniards  and  half-breeds  were  for  some  days  in  the  river 
Pomeroon,  without,  however,  doing  any  damage;  but  the  Indians  report 
them  as  having  said  that  they  were  coming  back  in  three  months  and 
would  then  establish  a  fort  there." 

In  the  journal  of  J.  C.  Severyn,  Military  Commandant  in 
Essequibo,  under  date  of  March  1,  1781  (V.  C.  II,  236),  he  said: 

"  Several  reports  which  came  in  yesterday  and  to-day  state  that  the 
Spanish  privateer  has  already  seized  some"  negroes  of  English  planters  in 
this  colony  who  were  on  the  river  in  boats,  and  holds  them  prisoners  in 
his  vessel;  while  he  has  hailed  many  others  and  made  them  heave  to,  but, 
on  learning  that  they  belonged  to  Dutch  planters,  he  allowed  them  to 
depart  unmolested,  he  having  gone  so  far  as  to  threaten  with  musket  in 
hand  that  he  would  fire  upon  them  if  they  were  unwilling  to  come  to. 
This  Spaniard's  name  is  Mateo,  and  it  is  a  matter  of  speculation  whether 
he  has  a  commission.'' 

April  3  the  Journal  stated  (V.  C.  II,  237): 

**  The  assistant   Luyken,  who  had  set  out   with  a  flag  of  truce  and 
letters  for  the  Governor  of  Orinoco,  returns  and  says  that  in  the  river  ho 
had  met  a  boat  with  Indians,  who  had  told  him  that  Mateo  was  lying  with 
his  craft  in  the  river  of  Barima,  and  was  carrying  off  everything  without] 
distinction." 

May  22  the  Journal  stated  (App.  Ven.  II,  237): 
"  The  planter  Cramer  reports  to  Captain  Ingram  that  in  the  river 
Pomeroon  Spaniards  with  boats  have  again  been  seen." 


POLITICAL  CONTROL.  555 

In  1785   Don  Matheo  Beltran's  cruises  again  were  made  the 
,     subject  of  comment  by  the  Dutch  authorities.     On  October  14  of 
[    that  year,  the  Government  Journal  contained  an  entry  that  one 
i     of  the  colonists  had  heard  from  Indians  that  "Matheo,  who  is  a 
Spaniard  on  the  coast,  mentions  and  threatens  that  he  will  over- 
take and  burn  our  Post  at  Marrocco  "  (B.  C.  V,  40).     On  October 
2  it   was  reported  "that  a  Spanish    barque    managed    by    one 
Matheo  continually  cruised  by  or  about  the  Post,  which  skipper 
liad  expressed  himself  more   than  once  in  a  seditious  way,  threat- 
ening to  set  fire  to  the  Post."    In  consequence  of  which,  the  Com- 
mandeur,  after  deliberating  for  three  weeks,  on  October  29,  gave 
the    Postholder  the  bold  and  resolute  order  "  that,  if  the  said 
Spanish  Captain  named  Mattheo  again  expressed  himself  in  such 
seditious  terms,  he  was  to  make  directly  a  report  thereof  "  (B.  C. 
V,  42). 
j         The  Commissioners  in  their  report  to  the  Prince  of  Orange  on 
;    the  condition  of  the  Colony  of  Essequibo  and  Demerara,  July  27, 
I    1790,  stated  (V.  C.  II,  243): 

"  Many  more  lauds  here  could  be  brought  under  cultivation  if  the 
vicinity  of  the  Eiver  Orinoco  did  not  prevent  it,  for  the  Syaniards  there 
sometifnes  come  with  armed  boats,  called  lances  [lanchas^,  as  far  as  Monica, 
1 1  ltd  hy  force  carry  the  Indians  who  dwell  there,  enslaving  them,  while  on 
the  other  hand  our  negro  slaves,  when  they  run  away,  betake  themselves 
to  Orinoco,  where  they  are  proclaimed  free." 

I         In  1802  Major  McCreagh,  of  the  British  Army,  made  an  official 

!    reconnaissance  of  the  posts  on  the  Orinoco.     He  stated  (V.  C. 

j    111,57): 

i  I         "In  entering  the  River  Orinoco  by  the  southeast,  generally  called  the 
great  channel,  Cape  Barima  forms  the  southeast  point." 

And  he  described  "an  immense  assemblage  of  flat  islands,  in- 
tersected by  innumerable  channels,"  which  forms  what  may  be 
called  the  north  wide  side  of  the  great  channel.  These  are  the 
islands  of  Cancrejo,  Loran,  and  others  opposite  Barima  Point, 
forming  with  it  the  two  banks  of  the  Boca  de  Navios. 


I 


556  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

He  went  on  thus: 

"  Having  entered  the  river,  you  pass  close  to  leevrard  of  this  island, 
and  a  few  miles  farther  up  you  come  to  a  second,  of  nearly  the  same 
appearance,  on  the  lower  point  of  Avhich  are  three  temporary  huts.  It  is 
called  the  first  military  post,  but  is  in  reality  a  station  for  pilots— of 
whom  there  are  always  five,  who  are  regularly  relieved.  They  are  native 
Indians,  and  are  occasionally  called  either  pilots  or  soldiers.  The  for- 
mer, I  believe,  however,  is  the  only  of  the  two  capacities  in  which  they 
are  used  to  act.     This  island  is  called  Pagayos." 

In  1802,  therefore,  the  first  post  of  the  Spanish  on  the  Orinoco 
was  the  pilot  station  at  the  Island  of  Pagayos.  This  island, 
though  put  down  on  Sheet  1  of  the  British  Atlas,  is  not  named 
on  that  map.  It  is  at  the  mouth  of  the  Arature  River,  the  first 
branch  of  the  Orinoco  above  the  Amakuru.  Many  other  maps  in 
the  British  Atlas  show  the  island  by  name;  for  example,  Map  46 
(Schomburgk),  where  it  is  marked,  "  I.  Pagagos  or  Pilot  I." 

Major  McCreagh  went  on  to  state: 

"  The  second  post,  as  it  is  termed,  is  named  Sacopana,  and  is  situated 
on  this  side  of  the  river  about  120  miles  above  Pagayos." 

It  consisted  of  eight  houses,  and  was  under  the  command  of  a 
sergeant. 

The  third  post  was  at  Fort  Barancas,  seventy  miles  further. 
It  contained  a  battery  of  eleven  guns,  commanded  by  a  lieuten- 
ant, with  a  garrison  of  three  Spaniards  and  forty-six  Indians. 

The  fourth  post  was  three  miles  higher  up  the  river,  called 
Upper  Barancas.  Here  were  stationed  three  gunboats,  close  to 
the  beach,  each  mounting  one  heavy  gun  and  some  swivels.  At 
this  post  it  was  the  rule  to  stop  all  vessels. 

The  fifth  post  was  thirty-eight  miles  further,  at  the  town  of 
Old  Guayana.  It  comprised  a  battery  of  six  6- pounders  and  six 
smaller  guns.  The  garrison  consisted  of  six  officers  and  twenty- 
five  rank-and-file. 

Above  these  five  posts,  eighty-two  miles  further  up,  was  th( 
town  of  Angostura,  the  capital.  According  to  McCreagh,  it  waj 
a  well-built  town: 


POLITICAL  CONTROL.  557 

"  The  houses  all  of  stone,  the  roofs  tiled,  the  streets  laid  out  at  right 
angles,  and  the  whole  situated  on  the  sloping  side  of  a  hill." 

There  were  about  fifty  soldiers  at  the  town.  McCreagh's  com- 
ment on  its  situation,  which  he  was  of  course  regarding  chiefly 
from  a  military  standpoint,  in  consequence  of  which  the  feature 
which  most  impressed  him  was  the  weakness  of  the  defences,  was 

"  Except  the  conversion  of  the  aboriginal  natives  (which  is  certainly 
not  the  primary  motive),  the  Spanish  Government  has  obviously  no  other 
cibject  in  occupying  the  Oronoque  than  the  very  important  one  of  exclud- 
ing other  powers  from  a  river  which  runs  along  the  rear  of  the  Provinces 
of  Popayan,  Venezuela,  Carraccas,  Cumana  and  Paria ;  which,  therefore, 
in  the  hands  of  a  commercial  nation  would  carry  away  from  them  the 
productions,  and  monopolize  the  traffic  of  those  rich  territories,  and  which, 
if  possessed  by  a  warlike  power,  might  immediately  paralyze  the  authority 
and  gradually  destroy  the  tenure  by  which  Spain  holds  her  vast  Empire 
in  South  America." 

Major  McCreagh's  statement  is  full  of  interest.  Undoubtedly 
the  defences  of  Spain  in  the  lower  Orinoco  were  not  highly  efficient 
from  the  standpoint  of  a  great  military  Power,  and  such  a  Power 
desiring  to  take  the  hint  conveyed  by  Major  McCreagh's  official 
report  and  to  carry  on  a  war  of  conquest  would  have  found  little 
difficulty  in  overcoming  them.  The  evidence  of  McCreagh  may 
have  been  valuable  at  the  moment  to  indicate  the  military  in- 
feriority of  the  Spanish  defences;  it  is  invaluable  now  as  indicating 
the  completeness  of  the  Spanish  occupation  of  the  lower  Orinoco. 
At  the  time  it  was  written  it  contemplated  the  divesting  of  Spanish 
title  by  war;  now  it  appears  as  an  inconvenient  admission  on  the 
part  of  a  British  officer  to  prevent  the  divesting  of  that  title  with- 
out war. 

If,  as  the  British  Case  seems  to  believe,  occupation  is  necessary 
to  establish  Spanish  or  Venezuelan  title,  nothing  could  have  been 
more  complete  for  the  purpose  than  the  occupation  as  McCreagh 
describes  it  in  the  lower  Orinoco.  That  occupation  began  in  the 
16th  Century.     As  admitted  in  the  British  Counter-Case  (page  28, 


558  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

line  30):  "The  Spaniards  entered,  explored,  settled,  and  effectively- 
defended  the  Orinoco."  The  occupation  has  been  continuous  down 
to  the  present  day,  and  as  early  as  1802  it  was  so  complete  that,  at 
intervals  down  the  river  below  the  capital  to  within  a  few  miles  of 
its  mouth  five  posts  existed,  four  of  which  v/ere  military  posts, 
with  batteries,  in  command  of  an  officer,  and  the  fifth  was  a  post 
of  pilots  a  few  miles  from  the  mouth  of  the  river.  If  occupation 
of  a  river  is  required  to  establish  a  title  to  it,  what  more  occupa- 
tion can  be  needed  than  this,  an  occupation  lasting  for  over  three 
hundred  years?  And  in  the  face  of  such  a  title,  accompanied 
continuous  occupation,  what  title  can  possibly  be  set  up  by  Great 
Britain  to  one  of  the  banks  of  the  Orinoco,  either  up  to  the  Barima; 
or  the  Amacura?  How  has  this  Spanish  title  been  divested,  and 
how  has  a  British  title  been  acquired? 

The  Spaniards  uniformly  asserted  their  rights  in  Barima. 
They  never  made  the  slightest  admission,  and  they  evidently 
never  had  the  slightest  idea  that  all  the  territory  west  of 
Moruka  w^as  otherwise  than  Spanish  territory.  They  uniformly 
conducted  themselves  as  if  it  vv^as  Spanish  territory.  It  was 
visited  constantly  by  Spanish  officers,  in  the  performance  of 
their  public  duties,  and  the  public  duty  with  which  they  were 
charged  at  the  time  was  the  duty  of  prohibiting  intrusion  from 
foreigners,  of  preventing  the  slave  trade,  and  of  enforcing  regu- 
lations in  respect  to  commerce  and  fishery.  Every  one  of  these 
was  an  act  of  territorial  jurisdiction.  Look  at  the  ordeis  to 
Flores,  and  Cierto,  and  Inciarte:  All  of  them  were  expressly  based 
on  the  Spanish  title  to  the  whole  region.  Look  at  Beltran's 
declaration  to  the  Postholder  at  Moruca,  and  the  statement  of  the 
Spanish  Governor,  twice  reported  to  the  Director-General  of  Esse- 
quibo  and  by  him  reported  to  the  Company,  that  the  Spanish 
boundary  was  at  the  bank  of  Oene.  The  Spanish  authorities 
never  hesitated  for  a  moment  to  enforce  territorial  jurisdiction 
them  against  foreigners  as  well  as  Spaniards;  in  fact,  the  cases 
which  we  have  in  the  records,  which  are  innumerable,  are  almost 


POLITICAL  CONTROL.  659 

entirely  cases  of  enforcing  dominion  against  the  Dutch  of  Esse- 
quibo,  their  persons  and  their  property. 

Notwithstanding  all  that  the  Spanish  did,  no  remonstrance 
was  ever  really  made  against  the  exercise  of  dominion  in  Barima 
as  such.  There  were  protests  made  about  the  fishery,  which  the 
Dutch  claimed  by  use,  which  claim  the  Spaniards  disputed. 
There  were  protests  about  depredations  at  Moruca,  which  the 
Dutch  claimed  was  the  site  of  their  post  and  was  an  injury  on 
their  territorial  frontier.  But  so  far  from  resenting  the  acts  of 
which  they  had  the  clearest  knowledge,  and  of  which  the  evidence 
to-day  is  largely  to  be  found  in  their  own  records,  they  not  only 
did  not  resent  them,  but  the  Colonial  authorities  were  expressly 
instructed  by  the  Dutch  Company  to  avoid  retaliation,  and  to  give 
the  Spaniards  no  cause  of  offence. 

From  the  records  that  have  been  quoted  above,  Barima  ap- 
pears, during  the  latter  part  of  Storm's  administration  and  of  that 
of  his  successors,  to  have  been  as  much  Spanish  territory  as  any 
part  of  the  country  west  of  the  Orinoco— not  settled,  it  is  true, 
but  none  the  less  Spanish,  for  settlement  was  not  then  necessary 
to  establish  title  any  more  than  it  is  to  day.  A  settlement  was, 
however,  decided  on,  and  its  establishment  was  commanded  in  a 
Royal  order,  and  doubtless  would  have  come  about  in  time,  had 
not  the  Revolution  interrupted  the  plans  of  the  Spanish  Crown. 


CHAPTER  XIV, 

ADVERSE  HOLDING-TRADE  RELATIONS. 

An  important  part  in  the  attempt  to  establish  a  political 
control  by  the  Dutch  over  the  territory  in  dispute  is  given  in 
the  British  Case  to  Dutch  trade.  The  proposition  is  thus  stated, 
at  page  80: 

"The  earliest  political  control  exercised  over  the  territory  in  dispute  was 
connected  with  trade. 

"By  the  Treaty  of  Munster  the  Dutch  and  the  Spaniards,  while  retain- 
ing the  '  commerce  and  country '  which  they  then  respectively  held  and 
possessed,  were  debarred  from  trading  in  the  territories  held  by  each  other. 
Even  before  the  Treaty  of  Munster  it  had  been  a  maxim  of  Spanish  policy 
to  exclude  foreign  trade  from  Spanish  possessions,  the  truce  of  1609  having 
contained  a  similar  provision.  In  1012,  for  example,  this  rule  was  enforced 
npon  the   Governor  and  people  of  Santo  Thome. 

"It  is,  of  course,  the  fact  that  the  Dutch  carried  on  an  extensive  con- 
traband trade  with  the  Spanish  possessions  by  the  connivance  of  the 
authorities,  but  the  existence  in  any  region  of  trade  carried  on  by  the 
>utch  systematically  and  not  on  sufferance  excludes  the  idea  of  Spanish 
Jolitical  control,  while  it  naturally,  and  in  fact,  led  to  political  control 
|y  the  Dutch.  It  is  from  this  point  of  view  that  it  is  important  to  see 
)ver  what  region  the  Dutch  traded  systematically  and  as  of  right." 

And  on  page  155  of  the  British  Case  the  following  important 

statement  is  made,  in  addition: 

"  Where,  as  was  usually  the  case  with  the  early  European  Colonies, 

[the  colonizing  Government   enforced   a   claim  to  dispose  of  an  exclusive 

right  of  trading  within  any  specific  area  surrounding  its  settlements,  that 

irea  was  undoubtedly  effectively  controlled,  and  its  resources  in  their 

fchen  state  of  development  were  effectively  appropriated  by  that  Goveru- 

lent." 

The  subject  is  dealt  with  in  the  Counter-Case  of  Venezuela  at 
fpage  73. 

It  would  seem  that,  after  putting  forward  the  claim  that  is 
[made  in  the  extracts  above  cited  from   the  British  Case,  it  should 


564  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

be  exclusive;  it  must  be  of  a  specitic  area;  it  must  be  under  a 
claim  of  right  to  a  specific  area,  and  the  occupation  must  be 
actual;  or,  in  other  words,  the  claim  must  be  effectively  main- 
tained. 

These  definitions,  laid  down  in  precise  and  accurate  terms  by 
the  British  Case,  prescribe  the  test  by  which  the  effect  of  trade 
relations  is  to  be  weighed  as  evidence  of  the  acquisition  of  public 
title  or  sovereignty  to  the  disputed  territory. 

We  assert  that,  upon  the  evidence,  the  Dutch  trade  within 
the  disputed  territory  fails  in  every  one  of  these  particulars. 

Before  applying  to  the  evidence  in  this  case  the  tests  laid  down 
by  the  British  Case  to  determine  the  value  of  trade  relations  as 
evidence  of  sovereignty,  a  word  must  be  said  about  the  character 
of  Dutch  trade  in  the  disputed  territory.  This  trade  was  of  sev- 
eral kinds,  and  they  must  be  carefully  distinguished. 

First,  there  was  the  trade  which  the  Dutch  carried  on  with  the 
Spaniards  in  the  Orinoco,  where  the  Dutch,  coming  either  with 
money  or  with  trading  wares,  either  across  the  interior  territory 
or  across  the  coast  territory  or  by  sea,  bought  from,  sold  to  or 
bartered  with  the  Spaniards  in  the  settlements  of  the  latter. 

Secondly,  there  was  the  trade  carried  on  by  the  Spaniards  with 
the  Dutch  in  the  river  Essequibo,  which  w^as  simply  the  reverse 
of  the  previous  process,  and  which  in  the  latter  part  of  the  period 
gradually  replaced  it. 

Thirdly,  there  was  the  trade  between  the  Spanish  and  the 
Dutch  where  the  traffic  or  barter  took  place  in  the  disputed  terri- 
tory, either  directly  or  through  the  intermediary  of  Indians. 

Finally,  there  was  the  Dutch  trade  with  the  Indians  them- 
selves, which  must  itself  be  considered  in  two  aspects:  First, 
where  it  was  carried  on  by  the  Dutch  itinerant  traders  wandering 
through  the  disputed  territory;  and,  secondly,  where  it  was  car- 
ried on  by  Indians  who  brought  their  wares  to  the  Essequibo 
River  itself. 

Great  confusion  has  been  caused  in  the  presentation  of  the 


TRADE  RELATIONS.  565 

British  Case  by  the  entire  failure  to  distinguish  between  these 
different  classes  of  Dutch  trade. 

Of  course,  nothing  can  be  predicated  on  Dutch  trade  as  a  basis 
of  sovereignty  where  the  Spaniards  were  the  other  parties  to  the 
traffic.  The  Dutch  could  acquire  no  rights  as  against  Spain, 
either  territorial  or  of  any  other  kind,  by  a  trade  in  which  Spain 
took  part  equally  with  them.  No  distinction,  however,  is  appar- 
ently drawn  by  the  British  Case  between  these  different  classes  of 
trade;  and  the  movements  of  a  Dutchman  in  the  territory  in  ques- 
tion, even  though  he  is  only  crossing  it  for  the  purpose  of  dealing 
with  his  Spanish  neighbors,  are  dwelt  upon  as  being  all  of  equal 
importance,  while  the  movements  of  Spaniards  in  the  disputed 
territory,  whether  trading  with  the  Indians  or  with  the  settle- 
ments of  Essequibo,  are  alike  ignored. 

The  only  question  presented  here  is  as  to  the  effect  of  Dutch 
trade  with  the  natives  in  the  disputed  territory. 

I.    Was  the  Trade  Systematic? 

The  Dutch  trade  fails  to  fulfill  this  requirement.  It  was  not 
systematic  in  the  sense  of  having  definite  trade  locations  or  in  any 
other  sense.  It  was  fugitive;  conducted  on  the  streams  by  the 
passing  of  wares  from  one  canoe  to  another,  or  on  the  banks,  or 
in  the  paths  of  the  forest,  under  the  shade  of  trees,  or  under  tem- 
porary shelters  where  shade  was  not  convenient  or  the  exigencies 
of  trade  involved  some  delays. 

The  trade  was  carried  on  either  by  old  negro  slaves  of  the 
Company  or  by  the  "itinerant  traders"  or  "  rovers"  who  roamed 
I  through  the  forest  and  bought  or  bartered  in  defiance  of  the  Com- 
pany's regulations.  There  is  no  locality  that  can  be  pointed  to  as 
an  established  centre  of  trade  west  of  the  falls  of  Cuyuni  and 
west  of  the  post  of  Moruca.  There  was  no  agent  anywhere 
established  by  the  Dutch,  either  of  the  Colonial  authorities  or  of 
private  traders,  to  carry  on  such  trade  except  in  the  short-lived 
post  in  Cuyuni,  which  the  Spanish  speedily  brought  to  an  end, 


5^(5  ADVEKSE  HOLDING. 

and  the  "  shelter  "  which  Beekman  intended  for  use  in  the 
Barima  in  1683,  but  which,  if  used  at  all,  was  used  only  for  a 
few  months,  as  the  undertaking  was  shortly  ended  by  the  Com- 
pany's refusal  to  take  up  Beekman's  project  and  by  the  cutting  off 
of  Essequibo  from  direct  communication  with  the  coast  territory 
by  the  second  colony  of  Pomeroon  planters. 

As  showing  the  maintenance  of  a  systematic  trade  during  a 
period  of  a  century  and  a  half  these  so-called  evidences  point 
rather  to  the  exclusion  of  the  Dutch  from  a  systematic  trade  than 
to  their  maintenance  of  such  a  trade.  Even  if  there  had  been  an 
agent  and  an  agency  in  the  locality,  the  existence  of  such  an 
agency  merely  for  trading  purposes  would  not  have  been  evidence 
of  dominion.  But  where  the  only  attempt  that  was  made  to  es- 
tabhsh  such  an  agency  in  the  disputed  territory  was  frustrated  by 
the  capture  and  imprisonment  of  the  agent,  or  by  his  withdrawal 
under  threats  of  attack  in  one  case,  and  the  abandonment  of  the 
project  in  the  other,  these  facts  prove  affirmatively  the  absence  of 
dominion. 

That  there  was  a  large  and  important  trade  with  the  Spaniards 
and  to  regions  admittedly  Spanish  is  unquestionable.  The  trade 
with  the  Indians,  however,  was  small  in  its  money  value  and  in 
its  ministry  to  the  colony.  The  Indians  were  not  producers,  but 
warriors.  The  Caribs  who  largely  frequented  the  Barima  and 
Cuyuni  regions  were  in  particular  a  predatory  tribe.  "Red 
slaves  "  were  their  principal  offerings.  Food  stores  were  chiefly 
for  their  own  use,  and  produced  by  the  labor  of  the  squaws.  In 
the  very  early  period,  the  Dutch  no  doubt  obtained  from  the 
Indians  considerable  cassava,  the  dried  root  which  both  Spaniards 
and  Dutch  used  as  a  substitute  for  bread.  It  was  not  long, 
however,  before  the  colony  had  its  own  cassava  or  bread 
plantations  within  its  own  limits;  certainly  before  the  close 
of  the  17th  century.  So  with  the  supplies  of  wild  hog  and 
fish,  with  which  the  earliest  colonists  were  more  or  less  sup- 
plied by  the  Indians.     These  supplies  were  later  replaced  by  the 


TRADE  RELATIONS.  567 

hunting  of  the  wild  hog  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  colony, 
by  the  colonists  themselves  and  by  the  shore  fisheries  which  the 
Dutch  conducted  along  the  coast  on  both  sides  of  the  mouth  of 
the  Essequibo.  The  articles  obtained  from  the  Indians  were  "  red 
slaves,"  dyes,  poison- wood,  canoes,  fresh  and  salt  fish,  balsam, 
letter-wood  and  hammocks. 

An  examination  of  the  entries  in  the  Commandeur's  Journal 
(B.  O-C,  pp.  47-158)  shows  the  petty  character  of  the  trade  and 
the  manner  in  which  it  was  conducted.  The  first  entry  shows  that 
the  products  of  the  plantations  had  become  large.  One  hundred 
and  nineteen  hogsheads  of  sugar  had  been  shipped  from  a  single 
plantation. 

The  items  as  to  the  Indian  trade  run  thus:  "Some  fish"; 
"some  fresh  fish  ";  "  fourteen  or  fifteen  bundles  of  poison-wood  "; 
"some  oriane  dye";  "two  parcels  of  bread";  "four  female 
slaves,  two  children  and  a  boy."  And  then  we  have  a  negro 
trader  returned  from  the  upper  Essequibo  with  "  129  pieces  of  salt 
fish,  12  calabashes  of  balsam,  20  logs  of  letter- wood,  and  four  balls 
of  fine  dye."  How  long  it  had  taken  him  to  collect  this  cargo  we 
do  not  know.  Another  trader  comes  from  the  upper  Essequibo 
with  "140  pieces  of  salt  fish,  making  together  about  two  casks 
full."  But  the  yacht  "  Rammekens"  had  to  go  to  the  coast  "  to 
obtain  provisions  "  for  the  garrison  and  slaves. 

And  so  the  story  goes.  The  trade  with  these  South  Ameri- 
can Indians  was  on  a  very  different  footing  from  that  with 
the  North  American  Indians.  The  former  had  nothing  to  barter 
that  was  not  the  product  of  manual  labor — and  the  warrior  scorned 
such  labor;  while  the  latter,  by  the  chase,  accumulated  pelts  of 
great  value,  and  so  opened  the  way  for  a  trade  that  was  vast  and 
profitable. 

These  Journal  extracts  not  only  show  that  the  trade  was  small, 
but  that  it  was  largely  conducted  by  single  negroes  going  out  in 
canoes  to  find  the  Indians  and  to  pick  up  here  and  there  through 


-jjj^  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

the  forest  the  balls  of  dye  or  pieces  of  cassava  root,  or  fish  or  ham- 
mocks that  they  brought  back. 

II.    Was  the  Trade  Exclusive? 

The  use  of  this  territory  for  purposes  of  trade  was  not  ex- 
clusive.    It  is  manifest  from  the  description    which  has  been 
giveu  above,  without  any  evidence  to  that  effect,  that  the  trade 
could  not  have  been  exclusive.     No  measures  were  taken  by 
the  Dutch  to  exclude  anybody.     The  journeys  to  and  fro  of  the 
three  or  four  negro  traders,  some  of   whom  were  occupied  in  the 
upper  Essequibo,   and   none  of  whom  had   any  fixed  routes  or 
times  for  trading,  could  not  have  excluded  anybody  else  who  de- 
sired to  enter  the  territory.      Neither  could  the  few    itinerant 
traders  or  rovers  who   went    in  there    on    their  own  account. 
There    was    not    a  settlement    of  Dutchmen   west  of    Cuyuni, 
in  the  interior,  or  west  of  Moruca,  on  the  coast.      There  was  not, 
during  the  whole  period  of  a  century  and  a  half  a  political   or 
military  agent  of  the  Dutch  in  that  territory  to  enforce  any  ex- 
clusion, either  with  or  without  the  necessary  men  to  carry  out 
such  an  object.     As  far  as  any  measures  taken  by  the  Dutch  were 
concerned,  the  region  was  as  open  to  anybody  else  as  it  was  to 
Dutchmen.    Moreover,  as  far  as  its  geographical  character  was 
concerned,  the  region  was  more  open  on  the  west  than  upon  the 
east.     In  the  interior,  the  east  side,  adjoining  the  Dutch  settle- 
ment, was  a  forest  wilderness,  traversed  only  by  a  river  whose 
rocks  and  cataracts  and  rapids  made  its  passage  dangerous  even 
to  the  Indians.    The  west  side,  adjoining  the  Orinoco,  was  an 
open  territory,  largely  consisting  of  savannas,  watered  by  great 
streams,    whose    accessibility  was    clearly   shown    by    the    ad- 
vance in  the  course  of  the  eighteenth  century  from  the  Orinoco  as 
a  base  of  more  than  a  score  of  prosperous  settlements  and  vil- 
lages.   The  coast  territory  could  only  be  reached  from  the  east 
by  sea,  going  around  Cape  Nassau  and  ascending  the  Pomeroon 
or  Moruca,  whence  the  passage  by  the  itabo  through  the  savan- 


TRADE  RELATIONS.  569 

nas  was  frequently  interrupted,  nearly  always  in  fact  during  the 
dry  season.  On  the  western  side,  the  entrance,  without  ever 
leaving  the  Orinoco,  was  made  by  the  mouth  of  a  great  and  deep 
river,  the  Barima,  free  from  rocks  or  falls  or  obstructions  to  navi- 
gation of  any  kind, — a  river  which  gave  access  to  the  whole  ter- 
ritory at  all  seasons  as  far  as  the  itabo  itself. 

In  view  of  the  geographical  characteristics  of  this  territory  as 
to  accessibility  on  its  eastern  and  western  frontiers,  it  might  be 
expected,  and  it  was  the  fact,  that  the  Spaniards  did  more  trade 
in  it  than  the  Dutch.  In  the  interior  district  south  of  the  Iraataka 
Mountains  the  Spaniards  not  only  traded  in  it,  but  settled  in  it. 
The  efforts  of  their  Capuchin  missionaries,  sent  out  by  Eoyal 
authority,  which  were  begun  in  1686,  at  converting  and  Christian- 
izing the  Indians  paved  the  way  for  the  establishment  of  mission 
settlements,  which,  beginning  in  17'24,  continued  throughout  the 
I  whole  century,  the  last  one  being  Tumeremo,  which  the  Crown 
established  in  1784. 

During  this  whole  period  the  Spanish  settlements  were  con- 
stantly increasing  in  numbers  and  importance,  notwithstanding 
the  fact  that  in  the  middle  of  the  century  some  of  them  suffered 
fiom  the  attacks  of  hostile  Indians.  In  1813  they  numbered 
twenty-nine  settlements,  with  over  twenty-one  thousand  inhab- 
itants, chiefly  Indians.     (V.  0.  II,  48Y.) 

In  addition  to  the  settlements  directly  in  charge  of  the  mission- 
aries, other  settlements  existed  in  the  same  territory,  such  as 
Upata,  with  its  great  tobacco  plantations,  and  the  Hato  or  cattle 
farm  with  two  hundred  thousand  head  of  cattle,  and  the  fort  on 
the  south  side  of  the  Cuyuni  at  the  mouth  of  the  Curumo.  Nearly 
all  these  settlements  and  establishments  were  in  the  territory 
washed  by  the  Cuyuni  and  its  tributaries.  How  great  a  stimulus 
they  must  have  proved  to  inland  trade  it  is  not  necessary  to  dwell 
upon. 

Long  before  the  missions  were  established,  hou^ever,  the 
Spanish  were  trading  in  this  district.     In  1684  Beekman  wrote  (V. 


570  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

0.  II,  46)  that  **the  copaiba  and  curcai  are  much  bought  u] 
by  the  Spaniards."  The  horse  trade  was  entirely  in  their  hands 
In  1693  the  Company  wrote  to  the  Commandeur  (V.  C.  II,  64): 

"No  slight  advantage,  moreover,  has  been  brought  to  the  Oompani 
through  you  by  your  having  found  out,  up  in  the  river  of  Cuyuni  a  tradi 
in  horses." 

In  the  official  Journal  of  Fort  Kykoveral,  August  17,  1699  (B 
C.  I,  215),  it  is  said: 

''  This  morning  a  goodly  parcel  of  trading  wares  was  given  to  the  ok 
negro  traders  so  that  they  might  set  out  for  the  Upper  Cuyuni  to-morro¥ 
to  procure  some  horses  by  barter." 

In  1701  Beekman  reported  (V.  C.  II,  65): 

••  The  trade  in  horses  up  in  Cuyuni  does  not  go  as  briskly  as  it  usee 
to." 

And  in  the  same  year  he  reported  (V.  C.  II,  68)  that  horses 
were  bought  from  a  Rhode  Island  ship,  "because  all  the  lands 
where  we  carry  on  our  horse  trade  are  under  the  King  of  Spain." 

In  1702  he  again  said  (V.  C.  II,  69): 

'•  The  Spaniards  will  no  longer  permit  any  trafficking  for  horses  or 
their  territory." 

And  in  1703  [Id.): 

"  No  horses  are  to  be  had  al)ove  here  as  formerly,  inasmuch  as  tho.^ 
Indians  think  they  stand  under  the  Crowns  of  Spain  and  France,  and  thi' 
trade  is  thereby  crippled." 

In  1706  (V.  C.  II,  71)  he  referred  to  the  report  "that  th 
Company's  horses  purchased  up  country  in  Cayuni  should  alwa\ 
die." 

When  the  British  Case  (p.  155)  refers  to  a  state  of  thint 
where  "  the  colonizing  Government  enforced  a  claim  to  dispo.- 
of  an  exclusive  right  of  trading  within  any  specific  area,"  it  ii 
tended  to  refer  to  the  Dutch  Colony  of  Essequibo;  but  it  wou^ 
appear  from  the  instances  above  quoted  that  "the  colonizii 
Government,"  which  "  enforced  a  claim  to  dispose  of  an  exclusi> 
right  of  trading,"  was  not  the  Dutch,  but  the  Spanish  Gover 
ment. 


TRADE  RELATIONS.  5Tl 

Not  only  did  the  Dutch  fail  to  enforce  an  exclusive  right,  but, 
on  thp  contrary,  the  Spaniards  did  enforce  an  exclusive  right, 
and  the  Dutch  assented  to  it,  respected  the  prohibition,  admitted 
the  right  and  admitted  the  territorial  claim  upon  which  it  rested, 
and  that,  too,  in  the  Cuyuni  valley  as  early  as  the  very  begin- 
ning of  the  eighteenth  century. 

The  trade  of  the  Spaniards  in  and  through  this  territory  not 

only  existed   in   the  seventeenth  century  period,  but  continued 

from  that  time  on.     Not  only  did  they  extend  their  settlements 

in  the  territory  watered   by  the  tributaries  of  the  Cuyuni,  the 

Yuruari,  the  Uruan  and  the  Curumo;  not  only  did  their  traders 

penetrate  the  interior  district,  through  which  the  Cuyuni  passed 

ifter  receiving  the  waters  of  these  tributaries,  but  the  Spaniards 

themselves  came  down  the  Cuyuni  in  considerable  numbers  to  the 

s'ery  settlements  of  Essequibo.     The  clearest  proof  of  this  is  given 

n  a  document  embodying  the  report  of  a  Committee  of  the  Esse- 

luibo  Court,  dated  July  27,  1750  (B.  C.  II,  68).     At  this  date  the 

;enter  of  settlement  of  Essequibo  had  been  gradually  moving 

llown  the  liver.     In   1740,  it  will  be  remembered,  the  fort,  the 

jroveruor's  house  and  the  principal  offices  and  storehouses  were 

noved  from  Kykoveral  to  Flag  Island.     It,  therefore,  became  a 

iubject  of  complaint  to  the  Company  and  to  the  planters  in  the 

ower  Essequibo  that  the  Spaniards  who  came  by  way  of  the 

nterior  district  stopped  at  the  upper  plantations,  namely,  those 

ibout  the  mouths  of  the  Cuyuni  and  Massaruni,  and  did  all  their 

.fading  there,  to  the  prejudice  of  the  Company  and  of  the  planters 

lower  down.     The  Committee  said: 


''That,  furthermore,  they,  the  members  of  the  Committee,  were  of 
I'inion  that  the  Company's  shop  there  should  again  be  started  .  .  . 
1  view  of  the  uicreasing  Spanish  trade,  it  was  not  unlikely  that  a 
asonable  profit  might  be  made  of  it,  especially  so  if  it  could  be  brought 
'uut  that  the  Spaniards  no  longer,  as  heretofore  has  usually  happened, 
inied  with  their  articles  of  trade  among  the  private  settlers  living  up 
le  river,  but  came  with  them  farther  down  and  as  far  as  to  the  fort. 
0  attain  this  end,  a  resolution  might  be  passed  that  no  one  whatsoever 


Ik 


572  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

nliould  be  allowed  to  come  into  the  river,  much  less  make  a  stay  there, 
unless  he  beforehand  addressed  himself  to  the  Commandeur  there,  and 
asked  him  for  permission  to  stay  in  the  Colony  for  a  stipulated  period." 

This  statement  lets  a  flood  of  light  upon  the  trade  conditions 
of  the  interior  district  at  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century. 
It  appears  that  at  that  time  the  Spanish  traders  not  only  overran 
this  district,  but  even  came  down  the  Cuyuni  to  the  Essequibo 
settlement  itself  with  their  merchandise;  and  as  they  reached  first 
the  upper  plantations  near  the  Cuyuni  mouth,  they  did  all  their 
trading  there.  Nor  is  the  reference  here  to  an  isolated  act  like  so 
many  of  those  upon  which  reliance  is  placed  by  the  British  Case. 
It  is  a  practice  well  developed  and  evidently  long  continued,  a 
practice  so  firmly  established  that  it  required  the  consideration  of 
an  official  Committee  to  determine  what  steps  should  be  taken  to 
obviate  it,  a  proceeding  almost  unheard  of  in  the  history  of  the 
colony. 

In  view  of  the  above  facts,  attention  is  called  to  the  remark- 
able statement  in  the  deposition  of  June  14,  1898,  of  Mr.  McTurk 
(B.  C-C.  App.,  p.  404)  who  says: 

"  There  is  no  record  of  the  Spaniards  ever  having  traversed  "  the  Esse- 
quibo and  Massaruni,  ''and  only  on  two  occasions  in  the  last  two  centuries 
does  any  record  appear  of  their  presence  on  the  Cuyuni."' 

Mr.  McTurk  doubtless  refeired  to  the  capture  of  the  Dutch 
post  in  1758  by  Bonalde,  and  to  De  La  Puente's  expedition  in 
1788.  His  statement  only  goes  to  show  that  he  failed  to  examine 
the  evidence  annexed  to  the  British  Case. 

As  to  the  coast  territory,  the  trade  was  even  less  exclusive 
than  in  the  interior.  This  question  has  been  considered  at  length 
in  the  chapter  on  Political  Control  in  Barima,  and  it  was  there 
shown  that  the  supposed  Dutch  trade  with  the  Indians  of  Barima 
was  a  fiction  totally  unsupported  by  the  evidence  in  the  case. 

There  was  substantially  no  Dutch  trade  with  the  natives  in  the 
Coast  Territory.  Dutch  trade  existed,  but  it  was  entirely  a  trade 
carried  on  between  the  two  colonies.    This  trade  was  at  first  carried 


TRADE  RELATIONS.  5Y3 

on  by  the  Dutch  going  to  Orinoco,  and  afterward  by  the  Spaniards 
going  to  Essequibo.     Great  difficulties  were  encountered  by  the 
Dutch  in  its  pui'suit,  owing,  as  they  claimed,  to  the  arbitrary  con- 
duct of  the  Spanish  authorities  in  reference  to  their  traders,  or,  as 
the  Spanish  claimed,  to  the  misconduct  and  violation  of  local  reg- 
ulations by  the  Dutch  traders  themselves.     As  far  as  the  present 
question  is  concerned,  it  is  immaterial  which  of  these  two  causes 
produced  the  result,  although  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  Dutch 
gave  frequent  cause  of  offence,  especially  by  attempting  clandes- 
i  tinely  to  pass  up  the  river,  and  on  one  occasion  at  least  a  Dutch 
I  trader  in   the  employ  of  the  Company  received  explicit  orders 
from  the  Commandeur  that  if  he  was  prevented  from  openly 
!  trading  at  Orinoco  he  was  to  evade  the  prohibition  by  secretly 
going  into  the  Aguirre  aud  trading  there  (B.  C.  II,  5). 

Whatever  the  cause  may  have  been,  the  fact  was  that  the 
t  Dutch  gradually  did  less  and  less  in  the  way  of  prosecuting  the 
'  trade  with  the  Orinoco,  only  two  of  their  settlers  being  at  the  last 
I  engaged  in  it  and  their  boats  being  mostly  manned  by  Spaniards 
(V.  0.  II,  148).     Finally,  they  abandoned  it  altogether,  and,  in 
accordance  with  what  had  been  the  policy  of  the  Director-General 
{Id.  120)  and  the  express  desire  of  the  Company  {Id.  146),  the 
trade  was  directed  "  into  such  channels  that  it  must  be  carried  on 
from  Orinoco  to  Essequibo,  by  the  Spaniards,"  instead  of,  as  for- 
merly, by  the  Dutch  from  Essequibo  to  Orinoco. 

The  Spaniards,  however,  were  not  the  only  nation  that  traded 

in  the  interior  and  in  the  coast  territory.    It  appears  from  Dutch 

documents  that  the  English  and  the  French  also  traded  within  the 

territory,  and  that  no  attempt  was  made  by  the   Dutch  to  expel  a 

;  these  traders.     They  bemoaned  the  loss  of  trade,  but  they  made  no 

representations  either  to  the  British   or  to  the   French  Govern- 

;  ment  that  the  trade  was  an  invasion  of  the  exclusive  rights  of 

;  the  Dutch.     Nor  does  it  appear  from  the  correspondence  that  such 

)  an  idea  ever  occurred  to  them. 


574  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

This  is  shown  by  the  evidence  annexed  to  the  British  Case  as 
well  as  to  that  in  the  Case  of  Venezuela. 

As  early  as  1683  the  Commandeur  wrote  (V.  C.  II,  44),  speak- 
ing of  the  trading  qualities  of  the  Indians: 

*'  For  these  people,  like  irrational  animals,  listen  to  no  argument ;  in- 
ducements of  every  kind — good  offices,  wares — have  no  effect  upon  them  : 
they  meet  you  with  the  tart  answer  that  they  can  get  plenty  of  these  by 
trade  in  Barima  and  other  places,  which  partly  squares  with  the  truth, 
on  account  of  the  trade  which  the  French  from  the  islands  carry  on 
there." 

This  statement  is  most  significant.  It  shows  that  in  1683 
trade  relations  had  been  estabh'shed  between  the  Indians  and  the 
French,  which  had  not  yet  been  established  between  the  Indians 
and  the  Dutch.  It  shows  that  the  French  were  freely  carrying 
on  a  trade  in  the  disputed  territory  "  in  Barima  and  other  places," 
and  that  the  question  of  the  French  right  to  carry  on  this  trade 
was  a  question  with  which  the  Dutch  did  not  consider  themselves 
as  being  concerned.  It  shows  that  this  trade  had  existed  for 
some  time,  and  it  is  spoken  of  as  being  carried  on  as  a  practice ; 
and,  finally,  it  shows  that  it  was  carried  on  by  French  who  came 
even  from  the  islands— that  is  to  say,  from  the  West  India 
Islands — for  the  purpose. 

A  year  later,  when  the  French  attacked  the  fort  at  Orinoco 
and  captured  it  and  held  possession  of  it  for  a  short  time,  their 
intrusion  into  the  trade  of  the  disputed  territory  became  even 
more  extensive. 

In  1685  the  Commandeur  reported  (B.  C.  I,  188): 

"Even  old  hammocks  for  negroes  are  scarcely  to  be  found  for  the 
prosecution  of  the  aunatto  trade,  as  the  planters  also  collect  these  from  fa^ 
and  near  for  their  slaves. 

"The  French  in  the  Barima  come  and  fetch  them  even  as  far  as  up  i| 
the  Cuyuni,  and  have  burned  there  the  houses  of  the  Pariacots,  and  havj 
driven  them  away;  the  latter  collect  the  balsam  from  the  trees,  and  this  i§ 
the  reason  that  Daentje,  the  negro,  has  come  back  two  weeks  ago  withoi4 
bringing  with  him  a  single  pound  of  balsam." 


TRADE  RELATIONS.  675 

Eighteen  months  later,  in  June,  1686,  the  same  conditions  pre- 
vailed.    The  Commandeur  said  (B.  C.  T,  201): 

"Just  as  I  am  closing  this,  Daentje,  the  Company's  old  negro,  comes 
from  the  savannah  of  the  Pariakots  up  in  the  Cuyuni  River.  He  has  been 
away  for  fully  seven  months,  and  was  detained  quite  three  months  by  the 
dryness  of  the  river.  All  that  he  has  been  able  to  obtain  is  a  little 
balsam  oil  and  hammocks,  because  tlje  French  are  making  expeditions 
through  the  country  up  there  in  order  to  buy  up  everything." 

Notice  the  particularity  of  the  Commandeur's  statement.  The 
French  are  not  raiding  the  Cuyuni;  this  is  no  foray  or  plundering 
expedition  of  which  he  is  speaking,  but  he  says  specifically  that 
his  man  cannot  obtain  anything  but  a  little  balsam  oil  and  ham- 
mocks, because  the  French  are  making  expeditions  through  the 
country  up  there  "  in  order  to  buy  up  everything." 

In  January,  1689,  the  Commandeur  wrote  (V.  C.  II,  59)  that: 

"  The  French  are  daily  sojourning  in  Barima  with  the  Caribs,  often 
with  two  or  three  barques,  and  the  P]nglish  from  the  islands  may  do  like- 
wise." 

In  October  of  the  same  year  he  wrote  (V.  C.  II,  62): 

"The  French  are  making  a  strong-house  in  Barima  ;  they  come  there 
"tten  with  3  or  4  barques  to  traffic  with  those  hostile  Caribs,  and  threaten 
soon  to  come  and  pay  us  a  visit." 

This  is  reported  to  the  Company  without  comment  as  far  as 
the  fact  of  the  maintenance  of  the  trade  by  the  French  is  con- 
cerned; and  the  Company,  in  May,  1690,  replied  (V.  C.  II,  63),  re- 
peating at  length,  as  'was  their  custom,  the  statement  above 
quoted  of  the  Commandeur;  but  the  Company  made  no  comment 
upon  the  fact  that  Frenchmen  were  trading  in  the  territory. 

In  1695  the  Commandeur  reported  (V.  C.  II,  64)  that  "some 
French,  aided  by  Caribs  from  Barima,  are  staying  in  the  mouth 
of  the  River  Pomeroon." 

As  late  as  1Y35  (App.  Br.  II,  21),  the  Court  of  Policy  in  its 
Proceedings  referred  to  "some  Frenchmen  of  Martinique,  who 
I  likewise  traded  there  [in  Barima]." 


5Y6  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

Thus,  for  over  50  years  the  French  had  traded  freely  and  at  will 
in  the  Bariraa.  Their  trade  was  much  greater  than  that  of  the 
Dutch  ever  w^as. 

The  colonists  from  Surinam  likewise  traded  in  the  territory  in 
question.  With  reference  to  their  trade,  the  position  of  the  Esse- 
quibo  colony  was  peculiar.  The  latter  was  the  creature  of  the 
West  India  Company,  a  company  organized  for  purposes  of  trade. 
The  original  charter  of  the  West  India  Company  had  given  them 
exclusive  trade  rights  over  the  continents  of  America  and  Africa, 
exclusive,  that  is,  as  has  frequently  been  said,  of  other  Dutch- 
men. In  1674  this  charter  had  been  modified.  The  Company, 
however,  still  assumed  to  themselves  the  trade  rights  which  had 
been  given  by  the  earlier  charter — the  right,  that  is,  to  exclude 
other  Dutchmen  from  trade  in  America,  even  in  the  territory  of 
other  States.  This  has  been  clearly  shown  in  the  citations  that 
have  been  made  from  the  correspondence  between  the  colonists, 
the  Commandeur  and  the  Company  from  1712  to  1717  (Letter  of 
Commandeur,  April  19, 1713,  V.  C.  II,  75;  letter,  May  31, 1713,  Id., 
75;  letter  of  West  India  Company  to  the  Commandeur,  May  14, 
1714,  Id.,  76;  Memorial  of  the  Free  Settlers,  May  24,  1717, 
Id.,  77). 

In  the  position  of  affairs  thus  described,  where  the  Surinam  , 
Dutch  were  competitors  of  the  West  India  Company,  and  were 
in  theory,  though  not  in  fact,  excluded  from  trade,  not  on!} 
in  the  disputed  territory,  but  in  the  Orinoco  and  Trinidad,  no  ter- 
ritorial rights  could  be  acquired  by  the  Company  through  or  by 
reason  of  the  performance  of  any  prohibited  acts  by  the  Surinam 
colonists.  According  to  the  West  India  Company,  the  possef- 
sions  of  the  Spanish  Crown  in  South  America  were  within  tI0 
charter  of  the  Company.  The  Company  would  not  tolerate  '*  th|<; 
the  inhabitants  of  Rio  Surinam  carry  on  any  trade  at  places  lyil 
under  the  charter  of  the  Company  "  (V.  C.  II,  71),  and  issued 
order  to  the  Commandeur,  in  1704,  to  prohibit  them. 


TRADE  RELATIONS.  577 

The  fact,  however,  is  that  the  prohibition  was  totally  disie- 
garded  at  all  times  by  the  inhabitants  of  Surinam.     The  Essequibo 

I  settlers,  in  their  Memorial  complaining  of  the  action  of  the  Com- 
pany, said  that  the  Company's  prohibitions  were  enforced  only 
against  themselves  and  that  they  were  compelled  to  "see  the 

^  profits  which  were  to  be  expected  "  from  the  trade  "  accrue  before 
our  eyes  to  our  neighbors,  to  wit,  the  colonists  of  Surinam  and 
Berbice"  (V.  C.  II,  77).  They  added  that  the  prohibition  "favors 
the  inhabitants  of  Surinam  and  Berbice,  and  also  encourages  them 

I  to  push  on  the  business  more  and  more  to  their  profit." 

They  said  further,  that  whenever  a  canoe  of  Surinam  or 
Berbice  "  met  any  free  Indians  who  have  red  slaves  for  sale,  they 
buy  the  same  in,"  and  that  they  "traffic  in  the  rivers  Marocco, 

i  Weijne,  Barima,  Pomeroon,  Orinoco,  Trinidad,  and  wherever  it  is 

'  convenient  to  them,"  "being  well  pleased  that  the  Essequibo  in- 
liabitants  were  oppressed  by  those  who  ought  to  protect  them 
and  their  gains  .  .  .  taken  away  and  driven  into  the  Surinam 
purse." 

It  appears  from  the  above,  that  while  the  Dutch  had  a  consid- 
erable trade  with  the  Spaniards,  which  the  Spaniards  equally  en- 
joyed with  the  Dutch,  the  Dutch  of  Essequibo  had  no  trade  in 

;  Barima,  and  that  what  trade  they  had  in  the  interior  was  not  ex- 

'  elusive  either  of  Spaniards  or  other  foreign  nations  or  of  the  Suri- 
nam Dutchmen. 

III.  Was  the  Trade  carried  on  under  a  Claim  of  Eight. 

Attention  has  already  been  called  to  the  fact  that  the  Dutch 
'  never  made  any  claims  in  respect  to  the  disputed  territory  except 
in  their  first  Remonstrance,  where  their  only  definition  of  a  claim 
was  to  the  branches  of  the  Essequibo,  which  was  afterwards 
withdrawn,  and  in  their  second,  where  they  complained  of  the 
prohibition  against  fishing,  which  they  claimed  by  ini memorial 
use,  and  declared  the  Waini  mouth  their  territory. 

Tiie  territorial  claim  of  1759,  whatever  it  was,  was  certainly  not 


578  ADVERSE  HOLDING.  i 

a  claim  based  on  an  exclusive  right  to  trade.  It  was  not  a  claim  to 
a  right  to  trade,  nor  had  it  anything  to  do  with  trade.  Claims  to 
an  exclusive  right  to  trade,  if  made  at  all,  should  have  been  made 
long  before  this,  for  the  trade  from  the  beginning  was  not  ex- 
clusive. It  was  quite  as  much  Spanish  as  it  was  Dutch,  and  during 
the  later  period  much  more  Spanish  than  Dutch.  Yet  there  is  in; 
the  record  no  single  instance  in  which  the  Dutch,  officially  or  un- 
officially, complained  that  Spaniards  traded  within  the  territory  in 
dispute.  Moreover,  during  a  large  part  of  the  time  trade  was  car- 
ried on  in  the  territory  by  the  French.  Repeated  allusions  in  the 
Dutch  correspondence  indicate  this.  Yet  no  complaint  was  ever 
addressed  to  the  French  Government  on  this  account.  Nor  wasi 
the  slightest  attempt  ever  made  to  check  such  trade,  either  by 
actual  force  or  threats,  or  even  by  persuasion  or  remonstrance. 
No  claim  to  exclusive  trade  was  ever  made. 

Even  when  the  Spaniards  went  so  far  as  substantially  to 
exclude  the  Dutch  by  their  organized  and  systematic  patrol,  dur- 
ing the  second  half  of  the  eighteenth  century,  did  the  Dutch  raise 
a  syllable  of  complaint  against  their  exclusion  from  the  territory? 
The  whole  course  of  their  correspondence  shows  that  they  never 
had  a  thought  of  setting  up  a  claim  of  exclusive  right  to  trade, 
and  where  the  Spanish  trade  in  horses  was  concerned,  they  even 
went  80  far  as  to  admit  not  only  that  the  territory  was  the  terri- 
tory of  the  King  of  Spain,  but  that  he  was  entitled  to  prohibit 
their  trading  thereon,  and  they  acquiesced  in  the  prohibition. 

The  position  of  the  Indians  in  this  matter  is  also  to  be  noted,  | 
because  the  Spanish  and  foreign  traders  used  not  only  the  terri- 
tory for  purposes  of  trade,  but  they  used  the  Indians.  They  not 
only  traded  in  the  territory,  but  they  traded  with  the  inhabitants 
of  the  territory.  This  has  a  double  aspect,  as  to  trade  relation* 
and  also  as  to  Indian  relations.  i 

i 

It  is  asserted  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  that  the  Dutch  exer^ 
cised  an  extensive  control  over  the  Indians.     If  that  were  so,  wh^ 
was  not  a  command  given  to  the  Indians  not  to  trade  with  othei 


TRADE  RELATIONS.  579 

than  Dutchmen?  There  is  no  pretence  of  any  such  command. 
There  is  no  pretence  even  of  any  such  suggestion.  The  Indians 
within  the  disputed  territory  traded  with  whom  they  pleased.  The 
Dutch  never  visited  them  with  any  penalties  for  trading  with 
other  nations,  or  attempted  so  to  visit  them.  In  one  instance, 
indeed,  when  the  Dutch  meddled  with  their  wars,  they  threatened 
to  go  to  Bariraa  and  trade  with  other  Europeans.  No  Indian  was 
ever  arraigned  by  the  Dutch  for  trading  with  the  Spaniards  or 
anybody  else.  The  Spaniards  came  into  the  territory  with  force 
and  patrolled  it,  interrupting  Dutch  trade  in  slaves  and  other  prod- 
ucts, yet  the  Dutch  remained  silent.  The  British  and  the  French 
traded  within  the  disputed  bounds,  and  though  the  Dutch  suffered 
from  the  competition  no  suggestion  was  ever  made  to  their  Gov- 

i  ernments,  or  to  anybody  else,  that  this  was  an  intrusion  upon  the 
Dutch.     The  agents  of  the  Dutch  West  India  Company,  including 

I  the  Governor  of  its  colony,  treated  these  regions  as  places  which 
might  be  freely  visited  by  the  Spaniards  for  surreptitious  trade 

I  with  themselves  and  for  free  and  open  trade  with  the  natives. 

I  Finally,  while  the  Dutch  West  India  Company  lamented  the  loss 
of  trade  that  went  to  other  nations,  it  never  in  a  single  instance 

I  set  up  a  claim  based  upon  the  establishment  of  an  exclusive  right 
of  trading  there. 

To  speak  of  such  a  trade  as  the  basis  of,  or  as  implying  or  lead- 
ing to,  political  dominion  is  not  only  wholly  unwarranted,  but  does 
not  stop  much  short  of  the  absurd.    The  Indian  who,  in  the  fastness 

jof  the  wilderness,  exchanged  a  hammock  his  squaw  had  made  for 

'ja  Dutch  knife,  with  a  man  in  a  canoe  whose  skin  was  only  a  little 

jmore  shaded  than  his  own,  and  who  was  only  there  by  the  Indian's 
I  will  and  license,  was  not  put  upon  any  notice  of  a  Dutch  claim  to 

ti^overeignty.  He  was  just  as  free  to  barter  his  hammock  to  a 
Spaniard  or  to  a  Frenchman.  Neither  of  these  was  kept  out  by 
:he  Dutch.  On  the  contrary,  he  often  saw  Dutch  and  Spanish 
'horse  kopers "  and  "cattle  kopers "  meet  and  trade  on  the 
IJuyuni;  and  had  himself  sold  hammocks  to  the  French,  both  in 


580  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

Cuyuni  and  in  Barima,  without  being  brought  to  book  by  the 
Dutch  for  doing  so.  He  had  tartly  told  the  Dutch  that  if  they 
meddled  with  him  in  his  tribal  wars,  he  would  go  to  the  Barima 
and  give  his  trade  to  others.  And  the  Indian  knew  other  facts: 
that  Spain  claimed  that  region,  and  had  sent  her  priests  and 
soldiers  into  it;  had  summoned  him  to  her  missions;  had  punished 
him  for  his  acts  of  disobedience,  and  the  Dutch  for  their  attempts 
to  establish  a  post  there.  He  knew  that  Spain  asserted  and  en- 
forced her  right  to  the  territory,  both  in  Cuyuni  and  in  Barima; 
and  he  knew  also  that  the  Dutch  had  utterly  failed  to  enforce,  or 
even  to  claim,  either  against  him,  or  the  Spaniard,  or  the  French- 
man, an  exclusive  right  to  tiade  there. 

Again,  that  the  Company  did  not  claim  Barima  as  their  terri- 
tory, and  therefore  did  not  claim  an  exclusive  right  to  trade  there, 
would  seem  to  be  made  certain  by  the  letter  of  the  Dutch  Di- 
rector-General to  the  Governor  of  Surinam,  where  he  said  that 
the  mention  of  "the  river  Barima  in  those  passes  causes  com- 
plaints from  the  Spaniards,  who,  maintaining  that  the  river  be- 
longs to  them,  in  which  I  believe  they  are  right,  some  of  these 
passes  have  already  been  sent  to  the  Court  of  Spain  "  (B.  C.  Ill, 
lU). 

The  man  who  wrote  this  was  the  representative  of  the  Dutch 
Government  and  of  Dutch  sovereignty  in  Guiana.  If  there  was 
an  exclusive  Dutch  claim  to  trade  in  Barima  then  being  asserted, 
he  was  the  man  to  assert  it;  yet  we  have  from  him  here  a  distinct 
admission  that,  in  his  opinion,  Barima  was  Spanish  territory.  It 
follows  that  the  trade  conducted  by  him  there,  if  any,  must  have 
been  regarded  by  him  as  a  trade  protected  only,  as  was  the  trade 
further  up  the  Orinoco,  by  the  sufferance  or  connivance  of  the 
Spanish  authorities. 

The  Company  was  even  more  in  the  dark  in  1Y61,  when  it 
demanded  of  the  Director-General  (V.  C.  II,  143)  "the  reasons 
why  you  deem  that  everything  which  has  happened  on  this  side 


TRADE  RELATIONS.  681 

of  Barima  must  be  deemed  to  have  occurred  on  the  territory  of 
the  Company." 

It  would  seem  from  this  that  the  Company  itself  did  not  re- 
gard either  the  Barima,  or  even  the  territory  to  the  east  of  it,  as 
being  in  any  respect  theirs. 

Still  further,  when  the  Company  was  finally  abolished,  and  the 
colony  of  Essequibo  had  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  State  and 
was  directly  managed  by  the  Council  of  the  Colonies,  the  Gover- 
nor-General himself,  Van  Grovestius,  stated  of  the  Moruca  that  it 
"  up  to  now  has  been  maintained  to  be  the  boundary  of  our  ter- 
ritory with  that  of  Spain  "  (V.  C.  II,  248). 

This  is  the  last  word  on  the  subject,  uttered  by  the  highest 
authority  in  the  colony  and  directly  representing  Dutch  sov- 
ereignty. 

In  reference  to  Barima,  the  Company  had  also  admitted  that  it 
had  no  exclusive  rights.  It  was  in  1683  that  Beekman,  referring 
to  Barima,  stated  that  he  thought  "  the  Company  can  do  as  good 
a  trade  there  in  an  open  river  as  can  private  individuals  "  (V.  C. 
II,  45). 

What  does  Beekman  mean  by  the  Barima  being  an  open  river? 
He  means  that  it  is  a  river  open  to  the  Company  and  to  all  the 
rest  of  the  world.  He  certainly  does  not  mean  to  assert  an  exist- 
ing claim  to  exclusive  trade  in  the  river.  His  words  distinctly 
negative  such  an  idea.  In  fact,  he  goes  on  to  express  the  wish  that 
the  Company  would  take  the  river  into  possession,  as  he  had  done 
provisionally.  But  the  suggestion  was  never  adopted  by  the 
I  Company,  and  the  river,  to  which  the  Company  certainly  at  this 
date  made  no  claim,  was  never  afterwards  brought  into  possession 
by  any  act  of  theirs. 

IV.  Was  there  a  specific  area? 

In  view  of  the  history  of  the  boundary  question  in  the  corres- 
I  pondence  of  the  Dutch  authorities,  how  can  it  be  said  that  the 
L  Dutch,  by  reason  of  trade,  have  extended  their  dominions  beyond 


582  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

the  limits  of  the  Treaty  of  Munster  within  a  specific  area?  What 
is  the  specific  area  of  the  claim?  Storm,  the  Director- General  of 
the  Colony  who  was  longest  at  its  head  stated  that  he  did  not 
know  the  bounds;  that  he  wished  the  Company  would  decide; 
that  he  wanted  information  as  to  where  the  boundary  was;  that 
it  was  a  source  of  embarrassment  to  him  not  to  know.  On  this 
point  the  Government  could  not  help  him.  Stoim  expressed  the 
opinion,  sometimes,  that  a  given  point  was  within  the  boundaries; 
in  his  next  letter  he  moved  the  boundaries  forward;  in  his  third 
letter  he  moved  them  back.  Sometimes  he  would  say  that  as  to  a 
particular  point  it  was  doubtful.  But  the  final  claim  made  as  to 
the  interior  was  simply  a  reversal  of  the  previous  claim  of  the 
Cuyuni  basin,  and  in  the  coast  to  a  boundary  which  practically 
concedes  the  whole  territory  west  of  Moruca  to  Spain. 

Not  only  was  there  no  claim  to  a  specific  area,  but  the  trade 
itself  was  not  within  a  specific  area.  How  are  we  to  find  the 
limits  of  a  claim  to  exclusive  trade  when  that  trade  paid  no  re- 
gard whatever  to  acknowledged  Spanish  boundaries,  but  crossed 
them  whenever  the  connivance  of  a  Spanish  Governor  could  be 
secured,  and  in  those  unpeopled  tracts  where  it  could  not  be  se- 
cured, pursued  it  furtively  and  clandestinely? 

The  limits  of  Dutch  trade  were  not  the  limits  of  Dutch  terri- 
torial claims.  Their  trade  was  extended  to  all  places  that  they 
could  reach  with  safety,  where  attractive  commerce  ofifered  itself. 
That  the  Dutch  trade  did  not  involve  the  idea  of  any  specific 
area,  and  that  it  did  not  involve  a  claim  to  dominion  where  it 
was  conducted,  appears  from  the  whole  body  of  the  evidence.  It 
appears  first  and  most  conspicuously  in  the  statement  of  the  Com- 
pany, in  1714,  that  it  had  a  right  to  trade  to  Orinoco  and  Trini- 
dad, &c.,  by  its  charter,  and  that  that  right  carried  with  it  the 
right  to  prohibit  the  trade  with  those  localities  to  its  Essequibo 
subjects. 

It  was  shown  likewise  in  innumerable  specific  cases.  In  1726 
the  Postholder  of  Wacquepo  was  instructed  to  endeavor  to  obtain 


TRADE  RELATIONS.  583 

slaves  and  balsam  in  the  Aguirre,  in  case  he  was  refused  per- 
mission by  the  Spaniards  to  obtain  them  from  up  the  Orinoco 
(B.  C.  II,  5). 

The  Aguirre  is  a  tributary  of  the  Orinoco  which  is  beyond  the 
extremest  claim  ever  put  forward  as  to  Dutch  or  British  limits. 
Nobody  has  ever  ventured  to  suggest  that  the  Aguirre  was  other 
than  Spanish  territory. 

So  the  fact  is  stated,  and  even  deemed  worthy  of  special  men- 
tion in  the  British  Case  (p.  48),  that  a  Dutchman  had  been  eight 
years  domiciled  in  the  same  river,  the  Aguirre  (B.  C.  IV,  20).  If 
the  fact  that  a  slave-trading  Dutchman  lived  for  eight  years  in 
the  Aguirre  is  a  foundation  for  Dutch  dominion,  why  does  the 
British  claim  not  include  the  Aguirre?  And  if  there  is  no  claim  on 
the  part  of  Great  Britain,  as  the  grantee  of  the  Netherlands,  to 
the  Aguirre,  why  is  the  fact  mentioned  that  a  Dutchman  was 
there?  It  might  with  equal  propriety  be  mentioned  that  a  Dutch- 
man once  lived  for  eight  years  in  La  Guayra  or  Caracas. 

The  West  India  Company  no  more  limited  its  trade  by  the 
limits  of  its  sovereignty  than  did  the  Hudson  Bay  Company  limit 
its  trade  with  the  Indians.  The  charters  under  which  the  West 
India  Company  was  operating  contain  a  distinct  disclaimer  that 
the  trade  they  were  to  conduct  was  to  be  limited  by  the  bounds  of 
Dutch  sovereignty.  The  first  charter  embraced  the  whole  sweep 
of  the  east  and  west  shores  of  the  New  World  (except  north  of 
Newfoundland  on  the  east).  It  did  not  assume  an  exclusive  right 
of  trade  within  the  regions  described  except  as  against  other 
Dutchmen,  and  all  the  trade  regulations  that  are  cited  in  the 
British  Case  are  to  be  read  in  the  light  of  this  established  fact,  that 
the  exclusive  trade  rights  of  the  West  India  Company  were  ex- 
clusive only  as  to  other  Dutchmen.  Certainly  England  did  not 
treat  these  charter  concessions  as  limiting  her  rights  to  trade  to 
f  regions  not  actually  settled  by  the  Dutch. 

There  was  no  specific  area.  The  wandering  tribes  were  met 
where  they  could  be  found,  and  unless  the  word  "surrounding" 


534  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

is  given  a  tremendous  sweep,  the  territories  into  which  they 
carried  their  trade  cannot  properly  be  described  as  "surrounding" 
their  settlements. 

V.  Was  it  Exclusive? 

As  against  this  supposed  claim  to  an  exclusive  right  of  trade, 
we  find  in  the  evidence  that  the  French,  the  English,  and  above 
aU  the  Spaniards,  traded  freely  in  the  territory.  When  was  a 
claim  to  an  exclusive  right  of  trading  within  the  disputed  terri- 
tory ever  enforced  against  any  of  them  by  the  Dutch?  It  is 
enough  to  say  broadly  that  the  exclusion  of  the  Spaniards  from 
the  region  west  of  the  Moruca  and  above  the  falls  of  the  Cuyuni 
was  never  accomplished  by  the  Dutch,  whether  their  coming  was 
for  trade  with  the  Indians  or  trade  with  the  Essequibo  Dutch  or 
to  patrol  the  territory  in  the  exercise  of  a  police  jurisdiction,  or 
for  the  special  purpose  of  removing  a  Dutch  Postholder  and  de- 
stroying his  post.  In  fact,  so  large  a  part  of  the  earlier  Dutch 
trade  to  the  Orinoco  and  to  the  savannas  was  a  direct  trade  with  the 
Spaniards  that  it  is  idle  to  predicate  upon  it  anything  as  to  Dutch 
claims  to  dominion  against  Spain.  The  Dutch  West  India  Com- 
pany's charter  contemplated  just  such  trade— trade  to  be  con- 
ducted with  the  natives  or  with  Europeans  in  the  territories 
assigned  to  them,  and  made  possible  by  the  absence  of  other 
Europeans  or  by  the  consent  or  connivance  of  th6  local  authorities. 

As  the  Dutch  did  not  make  any  claim  to  an  exclusive  right  to 
trade  as  against  the  French  during  the  long  period  when  they 
were  so  active  in  trading  in  this  region,  neither  did  they  enforce 
any  such  claim.  The  French  came  and  went  at  will.  The  Dutch 
Governor  chronicled  their  movements,  reported  to  his  Company 
how  much  damage  they  were  doing  by  their  trading  competition, 
how  great  the  loss  of  profits  was  in  consequence,  and  how  his 
negro  traders  were  compelled  to  return  empty-handed,  because  all  j 
the  goods  were  bought  up  by  the  French.  But  the  French  con- 
tinued the  trade  without  let  or  hindrance. 


TRADE  RELATIONS.  6S5 

If  the  Dutch  had  had  that  extensive  control  over  the  Indians 
that  the  British  Case  pretends,  they  could  have  stopped  all  this 
trade  simply  by  a  word  to  their  Indian  subjects.  But  the  word 
was  never  uttered.  There  is  not  in  the  whole  records  for  one 
hundred  and  sixty-six  years,  where  the  facts  in  reference  to  the 
conferences,  talks  and  so-called  agreements  of  the  Dutch  with  the 
various  Indians  are  minutely  chronicled,  a  single  intimation 
that  a  Dutchman  ever  addressed  an  Indian  on  the  subject  of  trade 
with  a  view  to  the  exclusion  of  anybody  from  that  territory.  On 
the  contrary,  it  appears  that  from  time  to  time  the  Indians  did 
exclude  the  Dutch.  An  Indian  war  put  an  end  for  the  time  being 
to  the  Dutch  trade.  The  Indians  at  their  pleasure  cut  off  the 
Dutch,  even  from  their  "provision  chamber"  in  the  Cuyuni. 
The  Dutch  dared  not  trust  themselves  among  the  Acaways.  In 
1673  Kol,  the  Commandeur,  had  to  wait  until  peace  had  been 
made  between  the  Caribs  in  Barima  and  the  Arawaks  to  send  a 
boat  after  crab- oil. 

When  the  conditions  that  prevailed  both  in  the  interior  and 

j  the  coast,  as  previously  described  in  this  Argument,  are  consid- 
ered, the  assertion  that  the  Dutch  enforced  in  this  territory  an 
exclusive  right  to  trade  seems  little  less  than  grotesque.  Take 
the  history  of  Cuyuni  from  the  time  when  the  Dutch  first  began 
to  assert  anything  in  reference  to  it  by  the  estabhshment  of  their 
post.     The  post  was  immediately  cut  off,  and  from  that  time  on 

P  the  correspondence  of  the  Dutch  Governor  about  Cuyuni  is  little 
more  than  a  record  of  what  his  outpost  at  the  falls  told  him  of 

l]    the  occupation  of  the  river  by  the  patrols  of  the  Spanish,  and 

I    their  frequent  visits  to  the  falls  themselves. 

We  cannot  here  repeat  all  the  citations  that  have  been  already 
given  from  this  correspondence.  The  distress  of  mind,  the  de- 
spairing tone,  the  discouragement  of  the  Director- General  at 
the  failure  of  his  efforts  to  "extend  the  boundaries"  by  the 
establishment  of  the  post  and  at  the  result  which  he  had  so  little 
foreseen,   namely  that  the   attention   of   the  Spanish   was  first 


536  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

drawn  to  Dutch  encroachments  and  that  from  that  time  on  they 
did  not  propose  that  there  should  be  any  question  there  about 
Dutch  dominion,  are  fully  pictured  in  the  letters  that  passed  from 
Essequibo  to  Middelburg. 

All  this  time  the  authorities  of  Orinoco  were  making  more 
active  and  complete  their  supervision  and  control  of  the  district, 
until  finally  they  built  their  fort  on  the  Cuyuni  and  sent  down 
their  officers  to  capture  Dutch  scouts  at  the  very  f^lls  themselves. 

No  less  graphic  is  the  picture  that  is  presented  as  to  Barima. 
After  changing  front  innumerable  times,  after  naming  every  river 
in  the  territory  as  a  possible  or  probable  boundary,  Storm  gave  up 
the  whole  subject.  His  people  had  never  traded  to  any  extent  in 
Barima,  except  by  way  of  passing  through  to  the  Orinoco. 
Finally,  even  this  was  dropped,  and  the  entire  trade  was  carried 
on  by  the  Orinoco  Spaniards  themselves,  who  brought  their  wares 
to  the  custom-house  at  Moruca,  where  they  paid  a  five  per  cent, 
duty. 

In  the  meantime,  and  apart  from  trade,  what  is  the  control 
which  is  asserted  over  Barima?  Is  it  Dutch  control?  The  Dutch 
could  not  go  into  the  territory  even  to  pursue  their  runaway 
slaves.  If  they  did,  they  were  sure  to  be  seized  and  car- 
ried off  to  an  Orinoco  prison.  In  Barima,  the  patrol  was  even 
more  active  than  in  Cuyuni.  The  great  facility  of  approach,  the 
absence  of  obstructions  at  the  entrance  of  the  great  avenue  that 
passed  through  the  whole  length  and  breadth  of  the  territory, 
made  it  easy  to  carry  on  this  patrol  exclusively  by  the  coast- 
guard vessels. 

The  mobility  of  the  Spanish  police  force  is  shown  by  the  re- 
ports, which  then  came  thick  and  fast,  of  their  presence  now  here, 
now  there,  first  at  one  point,  then  at  another  point,  in  the  territory; 
to-day  they  are  in  Barima,  to-morrow  in  Waini,  next  they  are  in 
the  itabos,  then  in  Pomeroon,  then  in  Moruca.  Letter 
after  letter  of  the  Director-General  reports  their  movements 
and  the    active  measures  which   they  were  taking  in  the    ex- 


'    or  vHf 
TRADE  itfiLATIONS.     ,;\t^  587 

ercise  of  control.  Cierto  captures  half  a  dozen  boats  in  the 
Barima;  Flores  burns  up  the  plantations  of  T.a  Riviere  and,  on  the 
flight  of  the  inhabitants,  carries  off  all  the  movable  property  to 
be  sold  at  Santo  Thome.  In  the  same  way  Flores  is  reported 
as  driving  out  the  Surinam  traders  (V.  C.  II,  120).  Finally,  Bel- 
tran,  the  "  Mattheo  "  of  the  Director-General's  letters,  is  ap- 
pointed to  the  command  of  the  coast-guard,  and  for  more  than  ten 
years  his  name  is  the  most  conspicuous  in  the  annals  of  Barima. 

The  mouth  of  the  Orinoco  is  not  neglected.  The  Governor 
himself  cruises  here  for  a  couple  of  months  with  two  vessels. 
Every  Dutch  fishing  smack  that  attempts  to  go  there  or  to  the 
mouth  of  the  Waini  is  seized.  Contrary  to  the  practice  of  the 
Dutch  in  asserting  their  so-called  claim,  the  seizures  at  the  mouth 
of  the  Orinoco  include  not  only  the  Dutch,  but  the  French,  the 
English  and  all  other  foreigners.  Indeed,  the  one  conspicuous 
fact  about  the  coast  territory,  from  Orinoco  to  Moruca,  during 
this  period  is  the  effective  supervision  maintained  there  by  the 
Spanish  authorities. 

We  must  once  more  call  attention  to  the  statement  in  the  Brit- 
ish Case  which  opened  this  chapter,  that: 

"Where,  as  was  usually  the  case  with  the  early  European  Colonies, 
the  colonizing  Government  enforced  a  claim  to  dispose  of  an  exclusive 
right  of  trading  within  any  specific  area  surrounding  its  settlements,  that 
area  was  undoubtedly  effectively  controlled." 

It  is  the  British  Case  itself  which  defines  all  the  attributes 
which  are  to  make  a  trade  claim  the  foundation  of  a  claim  of  con- 
trol or  dominion:  that  there  should  be  a  claim;  that  it  is  a  claim 
to  an  exclusive  right  of  trading;  that  it  is  a  claim  to  an  exclusive 
right  of  trading  within  a  specific  area;  and,  finally,  that  the  claim 
is  enforced. 

Taken  by  the  test  of  the  British  Case  itself,  the  alleged  Dutch 
claim  (which  the  Dutch  never  made,  but  which  Great  Britain  now 
makes)  fails  in  every  particular.  It  was  not  a  claim;  it  was  not 
exclusive;  it  was  not  to  a  specific  area,  and,  finally,  it  was  not  en- 
forced. 


CHAPTER  XV, 
ADVERSE  HOLDING— INDIANS. 

In  view  of  the  paucity  of  facts  tending  to  show  any  settlement, 
either  with  or  without  political  control,  in  the  territory  in  dispute, 
the  alleged  control  by  the  Dutch  is  very  confidently  and  more 
largely  rested,  in  the  British  Case,  upon  their  relations  with  the 
.  Indian  tribes,  and  the  argument  is  that,  by  reason  of  these  rela- 
tions, the  occupation  of  the  savage  tribes  became  a  Dutch  occupa- 
tion, and  as  effectual  to  establish  the  Dutch  title  as  if  every  savage 
had  been  a  Dutchman. 

The  laxity  of  the  rule  here  suggested  in  the  British  Case  is  in 
strong  contrast  with  the  technical  strictness  maintained  as  to  the 
discoverer's  title.  He  must  occupy  on  the  run,  and  effectively,  by 
actual  posts  and  colonies,  lest  mankind  should  be  excluded  from 
the  use  of  the  lands  he  has  discovered,  while  an  intruding  nation 
may  follow  the  track  of  the  discoverer  and  establish  a  wide  sov- 
ereignty by  alliances  with  savages,  without  introducing  a  settler; 
and  even  more,  he  may  extend  the  borders  of  a  settlement  he  has 
made  by  inciting  savage  hatreds  against  the  settlements  of  the 
discoverer  and  by  alliances  up  to  the  very  doors  of  such  settle- 
ments. 

The  relations  with  the  Indians  are  divided  into  two  classes: 
trade  relations,  and  those  in  the  alleged  exercise  of  political  con- 
trol. It  is  contended  that  either  furnishes  an  equivalent  under 
the  Treaty  to  actual  occupation  by  the  whites.  The  proposition 
is  put  forward  in  the  following  extract  from  the  British  Case 
(p.  149): 

''Effective  occupation  means  the  use  and  enjoyment  of  the  resources 
of  the  country  and  the  general  control  of  its  inhabitants,  under  the  pro- 

Iction  and  by  the  authority  of  a  Government  claiming  and  exercising 


590  ADVERSE   HOLDING. 

Effective  occupation  is  here  defined  to  have  two  distinct  ele- 
ments. The  presence  of  these  two  elements,  it  is  contended,  con- 
stitutes effective  occupation,    These  are: 

(1)  The  use  and  enjoyment  of  the  resources  of  the  country. 

(2)  The  general  control  of  its  inhabitants,  under  the  protection 
and  by  the  authority  of  a  Government  claiming  and  exercising 
jurisdiction  in  that  behalf. 

Here  we  have  to  consider  what  is  meant  by  "the  general 
control  of  its  inhabitants,  under  the  protection  and  by  the  author- 
ity of  a  Government  claiming  and  exercising  jurisdiction  in  that 
behalf." 

"Inhabitants"  clearly  refers  here  to  native  inhabitants.  Of 
white  inhabitants  in  the  disputed  territory  there  were  none  ex- 
cept the  Spaniards  about  the  upper  waters  of  the  Cuyuni  and  its 
tributaries.  There  is  no  pretense  that  these  were  controlled  by 
the  Dutch,  and  territorial  control,  as  it  relates  to  white  persons 
found  within  the  territory,  has  been  shown  to  have  been  exercised 
far  more  completely  and  more  continuously  by  the  Spaniards 
than  by  the  Dutch.  The  only  general  control  of  inhabitants  in 
the  territory  to  which  this  doctrine  can  refer  is  the  control  of  the 
native  inhabitants. 

The  principles  governing  this  contention  that  title  by  occu- 
pation may  be  acquired  by  control  over  Indian  tribes  must  be  dis- 
cussed in  the  light  of  the  authorities.  Upon  this  particular  point 
the  British  Case  itself  makes  this  statement  (pp.  155-6). 

"Where,  as  was  usually  the  case  with  the  early  European  Colonies,  the 

colonizing  Government  enforced  a  claim  to  dispose  of  an  exclusive  right  of 

trading  within  any  specific  area  surrounding  its  settlements,  that  area  was 

undoubtedly  effectively  controlled,  and  its  resources  in  their  then  sta'e  of 

development  were  effectively  appropriated  by  that  Government. 

****** 

"Again,  where  the  Government  of  a  settlement  acquires  the  exclusive 
ascendency  over,  and  alliance  with,  surrounding  tribes,  and  by  that  means 
excludes  foreign  influence  from  the  territory  which  they  inhabit,  that  terri- 
tory is  effectively  occupied  as  against  the  colonizing  enterprise  of  any  other 
country. 


INDIANS.  591 

"  The  American  Indians  were  never  treated,  as  between  European  na- 
:ious,  as  possessing  any  independent  sovereignty,  however  completely  their 
;ribal  polity  and  their  occupancy  of  the  soil  might  be  for  the  time  being  re- 
jpected  by  the  Governments  under  whose  influence  they  came.  This  is 
;he  established  view  in  North  America,  and  it  was  certainly  not  less  true  in 
South  America.  It  follows  that  the  State  controlling  the  Indians  must  be 
•ecognized  as  between  Europeans  as  having  the  sovereignty." 

The  following,  from  the  Counter-Case  of  Venezuela  (pp.  96-7), 
makes  up  an  issue  of  law  to  which  we  now  address  ourselves: 

"  If  it  were  possible  to  prove,  beyond  the  perad venture  of  a  doubt,  that 
:he  Indians  had  consented  to  accept  the  Dutch  control  and  that  the  Dutch 
?xercised  it,  Venezuela  considers,  and  will  claim,  that  it  could  form  no 
foundation  whatever  for  a  territorial  title.  As  to  such  right  or  title, 
claimed  to  be  derived  by  the  Dutch  or  British,  either  directly  or  by  impli- 
jation,  from  or  through  the  Indian  tribes,  it  will  be  contended,  first,  that 
;hese  tribes  were  wanderers,  and  had  not  even  possessory  titles  to  any  de- 
5ned  territories;  second,  that  by  the  law  of  nations  and  the  universal  prac- 
;ices  of  all  European  States  the  American  tribes  having  distinct  territorial 
Dounds  had  only  a  possessory  right  to  the  lands  occupied,  and  that  this 
right  they  were  incapable  to  transfer  except  to  a  nation  that  had  already, 
by  discovery  or  other  acts  necessary  to  the  appropriation  of  wild  lands, 
)btained  the  ultimate  title  to  such  lands — such  nation  having  an  exclusive 
right  to  extinguish  the  possessory  right  of  the  tribes;  third,  that  what 
such  tribes  could  not  do  by  deed  or  treaty  of  cession,  much  less  could  they 
3o  by  any  submission  or  alliance;  that  the  prior  right  of  Spain  could  not 
be  diminished  or  affected  by  any  other  Power  by  virtue  of  any  acts  or  sub- 
missions of  the  tribes;  fourth,  that  such  acts  and  submissions  of  the  tribes 
were  equally  ineffectual  to  extend  the  political  control  of  the  Dutch  or  the 
British." 

In  the  British  Case,  all  the  facts  relating  to  Indian  relations  are 
grouped  under  the  head  "Political  Control,"  and  would,  there- 
fore, seem  to  be  addressed  to  that  clause  of  Rule  (a)  of  Article  IV 
3f  the  Treaty  which  says: 

'^  The  Arbitrators  may  deem  exclusive  political  control  of  a  district,  as 
yell  as  actual  settlement  thereof,  sufficient  to  constitute  adverse  holding 
)r  to  make  title  by  prescription." 

But  the  statements  from  the  British  Case  given  above  seem  to 
iffirm  that  political  control  is  not  only  something  that  may,  by 


592  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

this  special  provision  of  the  Treaty,  be  treated  as  the  equivalent  of 
actual  occupation,  but  that,  by  the  general  principles  of  interna- 
tional law,  it  is  an  actual  occupation. 

The  Treaty,  however,  plainly  implies  that  the  case  must  be 
especially  clear  and  very  strong  before  exclusive  political  control 
can  be  accepted  as  the  equivalent  of  an  actual  adverse  occupa- 
tion, and  that  but  for  this  provision  of  the  Treaty  it  could  not  in 
any  case  be  so  accepted. 

We  insist  that  this  provision  of  the  Treaty  must  be  inter- 
preted in  the  light  of  all  the  rules  of  international  law  bear- 
ing upon  the  subject  and  not  inconsistent  with  the  rule  prescribed 
in  the  Treaty.  It  is  not  to  be  construed  as  allowing  political  con- 
trol to  be  derived  from  acts  and  sources  to  which  the  rules  of  law 
and  the  practice  of  all  nations  in  America  deny  that  effect. 

We  assert  with  confidence  that  writers  on  international  law 
deny  the  right  of  savage  tribes  to  the  dominion  of  lands  they 
occupy,  and  their  competency  to  cede  sovereignty  or  dominion  to 
any  European  nation.  Nothing  that  these  tribes  can  do,  by 
treaties  of  cession  or  by  alliance,  can  affect  a  dispute  between  two 
European  nations  as  to  the  sovereignty  of  the  country  occupied 
by  such  tribes. 

The  British  Case  admits  that  the  American  Indians  were  never 
treated,  as  between  European  nations,  as  possessing  any  inde- 
pendent sovereignty.  They  can  have,  then,  no  territorial  do- 
minion that  they  can  transfer,  and  quite  clearly  none  that  can  bfl 
derived  from  them  by  conquest.  That  cannot  be  taken  from  on« 
which  he  does  not  have,  either  by  deed  or  by  force.  A  Europeai 
dominion  in  America  was  never,  by  any  nation,  rested  upon  ces- 
sions or  conquests  from  the  natives.  It  is  a  clear  non  sequitur,  as 
well  as  a  perversion  of  American  history,  to  say  that  "the  State 
controlling  the  Indians  must  be  recognized,  as  between  Europeans, 
as  having  the  sovereignty." 

Great  Britain  would  have  stopped  at  the  Alleghanies  if  she  had 
allowed  this  deduction  in  favor  of  the  French,  and  the  United 


INDIANS.  593 

States  would  have  lost  the  Northwest  Territory  if  it  had  been  al- 
lowed in  favor  of  Great  Britain  in  1811-14.  If  Indian  submissions 
and  alliances  could  have  been  made  the  basis  of  territorial 
sovereignty,  the  map  of  North  America  would  have  been  greatly 
changed.  If  there  had  been  a  single  instance  in  all  of  the  disputes 
as  to  American  territories  and  boundaries  where  any  European 
nation  had  based  a  successful  claim  to  territorial  sovereignty  upon 
the  submission  of  the  Indian  tribes  or  upon  a  conquest  from  them, 
it  would  have  been  cited. 

In  fact,  it  was  never  allowed  and  never  before  claimed,  we 
think,  that  a  title  by  discovery  might  be  ousted  or  terminated  by 
another  nation  through  the  acquisition  of  control  of  native 
tribes— effected  by  paltry  presents  or  by  aiding  their  pursuit  of 
plunder  or  their  taking  of  European  scalps. 

The  British  Case  (p.  156)  gives  an  extract  from  the  opinion  of 
Chief  Justice  Marshall  in  the  case  of  Johnson  v.  Mcintosh  (8 
Wheaton's  U.  S.  Sup.  Ct.  Reports,  p.  573),  and  apparently 
approves  the  doctrine  announced  by  that  great  jurist. 

The  extract  does  not  give  a  sufficient  understanding  of  the 
case,  and  we  therefore  turn  to  it  to  see  what  it  was  that  Chief 
Justice  Marshall  said. 

The  case  presented  the  question  of  the  validity  of  a  grant  of 
lands  in  the  now  State  of  Illinois  by  Indian  tribes  to  a  certain 
company  of  individuals,  and  the  principal  question  was  whether 
this  grant  was  valid  as  against  the  United  States. 

The  Chief  Justice  declares  (p.  576)  that  the  Governments  of 
Europe  settling  America  agreed  to  this  rule: 

"  That  discovery  gave  title  to  the  government  by  whose  subjects,  or  by 
whose  authority,  it  was  made,  against  all  other  European  governments, 
which  title  might  be  consummated  by  possession.  The  exclusion  of  all 
other  Europeans,  necessarily  gave  to  the  nation  making  the  discovery  the 
sole  right  of  acquiring  the  soil  from  the  natives,  and  establishing  settle- 
ments upon  it.  It  was  a  right  with  which  no  Europeans  could  interfere. 
It  was  a  right  which  all  asserted  for  themselves,  and  to  the  assertion  of 
which,  by  others,  all  assented," 


594  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

He  declares,  as  we  have  seen,  that 

"  No  one  of  the  powers  of  Europe  gave  its  full  assent  to  this  principle, 
[of  title  by  discovery]  more  unequivocally  than  England;" 
and  he  particularly  points  out,  as  we  have  seen  in  our  discussion 
of  title  by  discovery,  what  tremendous  sweep  was  given  by  Great 
Britain  to  this  title  and  to  her  feeble  settlements  on  the  seaboard. 

He  further  says  (p.  583),  speaking  of  the  Franco- English  Ti-eaty 

of  1763: 

"  Great  Britain,  on  her  part,  surrendered  to  France  all  her  pretensions 
to  the  country  west  of  the  Mississippi.  It  has  never  been  supposed  that  she 
surrendered  nothing,  although  she  was  not  in  actual  possession  of  a  foot  ol 
land.  She  surrendered  all  right  to  acquire  the  country;  and  any  after- 
attempt  to  purchase  it  from  the  Indians,  would  have  been  considered  an( 
treated  as  an  invasion  of  the  territories  of  France." 

What  the  Chief  Justice  here  says  as  to  the  actual  possession  o( 
this  country  west  of  the  Mississippi  by  Great  Britain  is  trut 
also  of  France.  J 

Again,  the  Chief  Justice  says  (p.  592): 

"  The  absolute  ultimate  title  has  been  considered  as  acquired  by  dia 
CO  very,  subject  only  to  the  Indian  title  of  occupancy,  which  title  the  dis 
coverers  possessed  the  exclusive  right  of  acquiring." 

This  case  clearly  supports  our  proposition  that  nothing  don< 
by  or  through  or  upon  the  Indians  can  affect  the  question  of  titU 
as  between  two  European  nations;  that  no  nation  that  has  noi 
previously  acquired  dominion  can  take  from  them  even  their  pos- 
sessory right  to  the  use  of  the  soil.  To  acquire  sovereignty  of  the 
territory  is  the  first  step,  and  to  this  step  no  act  of  the  native 
tribes  can  aid  or  contribute  in  any  degree. 

The  title  of  Spain,  the  admitted  discoverer  of  Guiana,  could 
not  in  any  way  be  affected,  could  not  be  terminated,  nor  could  any 
rights  against  her  be  acquired  through  the  Indians.  If  their 
friendship  with  or  submission  to  this  nation  or  that  is  to  decide 
the  question  of  dominion,  we  have  the  paradox  :  Those  that  have 
no  sovereignty  or  dominion  may  assertively  cast  dominion  here 
and  there  at  their  pleasure. 


INDIANS.  696 

Twis3,  in  his  discussion  of  the  Oregon  Question  (p.  251),  says 

that  the  United  States  Government  asserted  the  following  rule: 

"  Whenever  any  European  nation  has  thus  acquired  a  right  to  any 
portion  of  territory  on  that  continent,  that  right  can  never  be  diminished 
or  affected  by  any  other  Power,  by  virtue  of  purchases  made,  by  grants, 
or  conquests  of  the  natives  Avithin  the  limits  described." 

This  is  the  principle  declared  in  Johnson  v.  Mcintosh.  It  is 
that  lands  occupied  solely  by  savage  tribes  are  res  nulliiLs,  subject 
to  discovery  and  occupation,  and  the  title  is  acquired  only  in  that 
way.  Phillimore  quotes  with  approval  this  rule  (1,  Sec.  238),  and 
adds,  in  a  footnote: 

'•  In  the  case  of  Johnson  v.  Mcintosh,  decided  by  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States,  A.  D.  1823,  the  practice  and  law  on  this  subject  are 
fully  considered.*' 

The  principle  is  thus  stated  by  Phillimore,  in  the  section  above 
cited,  as  one  of  the  principles  underlying  title  by  discovery,  as 
follows: 

•  A  third  rule  is  that  whenever  any  European  nation  has  thus  acquired 
u  right  to  any  portion  of  territory  on  that  continent,  that  right  can  never 
be  diminished  or  affected  by  any  other  Power,  by  virtue  of  purchases 
made,  grants  or  conquests  of  the  natives  within  the  limits  thereof. 
Tt  is  believed  that  this  principle  has  been  admitted  and  acted  on  invari- 
ly  since  the  discovery  of  America,  in  respect  to  their  possessions  there, 
by  all  the  European  Powers." 

The  right  of  the  aborigines,  whatever  it  may  be,  is  vested  in 

e  original  European  occupant  by  the  mere  fact  of  occupancy. 

>ays  Twiss  (Oregon  Question,  p.  176): 

••  A  further  accessorial  right  of  settlement  has,  in  modern  times,  been 
recognized  by  the  practice  of  civilized  nations  in  both  hemispheres, 
namely,  a  right  of  pre-emption  from  the  aboriginal  inliabitants  in  favor  of 
the  nation  which  has  actually  settled  in  the  country.  It  is  this  right 
which  Great  Britain  asserts  against  all  other  civilized  nations  in  respect 
to  New  Zealand,  and  which  the  United  States  of  America  assert  against 
lall  other  civilized  nations  in  respect  to  the  native  Indians.  The  claim 
involved  in  it  is  evidently  based  upon  the  principle,  that  the  acquisition 
of  such  territory  by  any  other  nation  would  be  prejudicial  to  the  full 


596  ADVERSE   HOLDIxVG. 

enjoyment  of  the  existing  territorial  rights  of  the  nation  which  has  made 
settlement  there." 

In  the  present  case  this  accessorial  right  appertains  to  Spain. 
Her  rights  as  a  discoverer  and  occupant  could  not  be  bargained 
away  to  the  Dutch  by  the  savage  tribes.  Even  if  her  rights  as  a 
discoverer  were  not  perfected  to  these  lands,  her  inclioate  title 
could  not  be  terminated  by  any  act  of  the  natives.  If  the  British 
view  is  to  prevail,  and  these  lands  were  open  to  the  occupancy  of 
any  nation,  the  basis  of  the  title  of  any  incoming  nation  is  settle- 
ment and  occupation  by  the  whites.  Even  lands  that  are  terra 
nullius  cannot  be  made  Dutch  territory  by  the  exchange  of  some 
blue  beads  and  a  silver- tipped  stalff  with  the  Indians.  If  that 
had  been  accepted  as  occupation,  it  would  have  allowed  the  per- 
petuation of  the  savage  use  of  the  American  continent,  and  have 
permitted  the  second  comer  to  have  terminated  the  title  of  the 
discoverer,  upon  the  ground  that  he  had  not  occupied,  by  con- 
tinuing the  savage  occupancy. 

Twiss  (Oregon  Question,  p.  252)  says  that  the  nation  first  occu- 
pying a  territory  has  the  sole  right  of  acquiring  the  soil  from  the 
natives  by  cession,  purchase  or  conquest. 

Twiss  (Law  of  Nations,  Sec.  135)  quotes  Chancellor  Kent  as 
saying  in  his  Commentaries  (I,  p.  258): 

"  The  principle  is  that  the  Indians  are  to  be  considered  merely  as  oc- 
cupants to  be  protected  while  in  peace  in  the  possession  of  their  lands, 
but  incapable  of  transferring  absolute  title  to  any  other  than  the  sovereign 
of  the  country  who  has  an  exclusive  right  to  extinguish  the  Indian  right 
of  occupancy  either  by  purchase  or  conquest." 

That  is,  the  Indian's  possession  and  occupancy  is  that  of  the 
discoverer.  He  cannot  attorn  to  another.  The  adverse  wliite 
claimant  who  comes  in  against  the  discoverer's  title  must  occupy 
for  himself,  or  there  is  no  ouster.  He  may  not  bribe  the  occupy- 
ing tenant. 

When  the  Spanish  title  once  attached  to  this  disputed  territory, 
the  Indians  held  for  Spain,  and  they  could  do  absolutely  nothing 
to  diminish  her  title. 


INDIANS.  59T 

The  incidents  connected  with  the  British  settlement  of  New 
Zealand  in  1840  deserve  careful  study  in  connection  with  this 
subject. 

New  Zealand  first  attracted  public  attention  by  the  desire  of 
some  of  the  Australians  to  acquire  it  and  by  the  formation  of  a 
private  company  for  that  purpose  between  1835  and  1840.  This 
was  just  at  the  time  when  the  efforts  to  secure  West  Indian 
emancipation  (which  took  effect  August  1,  1838)  had  aroused  a 
wave  of  philanthropy  towards  the  dark  races.  Apparently  under 
the  influence  of  this,  and  of  a  disinclination  on  the  part  of  the 
Government  to  assume  the  burden  of  acquiring  a  new  continent 
for  the  Australian  settlers,  who  had  barely  occupied  the  border  of 
one  corner  of  their  owm,  the  British  Government  then  in  office, 
somewhat  fortified,  perhaps,  by  some  previous  expressions,  under- 
took to  treat  the  New  Zealanders  as  constituting  a  sovereign 
State. 

But  as  soon  as  they  began  to  put  this  theory  into  practice  they 
encountered  the  evils  which  naturally  flow  from  proceeding  upon 
a  false  basis.  It  involved  them  in  various  troubles,  and  did  not 
help  the  natives,  who  either  parted  with  their  lands  for  an  axe  or 
a  gun,  under  guise  of  purchases  or  treaties,  or,  if  they  got  a  sub- 
stantial payment,  wasted  it  at  once  in  debauchery. 

During  the  next  five  years  (and  indeed  later)  the  resulting  trou- 
bles led  to  some  very  elaborate  inquiries  by  Parliament.  The  first 
important  result  was  a  Report  of  July  30,  1840  (Pari.  Papers,  1840, 
Reports  of  Committees,  vol.  7). 

The  colony,  says  the  report,  has  become  involved  in  difficulties 
which  may  require  legislation: 

"  That  remedy  would,  in  the  opinion  of  your  committee,  have  been 
now  uncalled  for,  if  the  British  Government  had,  from  the  year  1769 
downwards,  never  lost  sight  of  the  principle  which  w&s  formerly  acted  upon 
htf  this  country  and  by  all  other  European  powers  with  regard  to  their 
North  American  possessions,  and  bad  refused  to  recognize  any  titles  to 
land  founded  on  purchases  made  by  private  persons  from  savages. 
1       "  This  principle  has  been  adopted  by  the  United  States,  and  it  has 


598  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

conritiuitly  guided  their  government  in  its  dealings  with  the  various  In- 
dian tribes  inhabiting  the  North  American  continent,  and  it  has  been 
solemnly  declared  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  Judicature  in  the  United 
States  to  be  a  principle  of  international  law.  See  particularly  Johnson  v. 
Mcintosh,  8  Wheaton's  Kep.,  543;  Kent's  Com.  iii,  o76.  According  to 
this  principle,  the  nation  by  whose  subjects  a  new  country  is  discovered, 
acquires  thereby  a  title  to  its  possession  as  against  all  foreign  powers.; 
That  title,  when  completed  by  occupation,  gives  to  the  discovering  natioo 
the  sole  right  to  purchase  the  soil  from  the  natives,  to  establish  settle- 
ments within  its  territory,  and  to  regulate  its  relation  with  foreign  powers. 
Upon  this  principle  the  governments  of  Europe,  as  well  as  that  of  th< 
United  States,  have  asserted  their  right — a  right  qualified  only  by  the 
moral  obligation  of  acting  with  justice  to  the  aborigines, — to  grant  lands 
to  individuals  in  territories  so  acquired  by  them,  and  upon  it  the  British 
Government  has  recently  set  aside  purchases  made  by  individual  settler^ 
from  the  natives  in  the  neighborhood  of  Port  St.  Philip." 

Another  Parliamentary  Committee  re-examined  the  subject. 

Their  report  is  in  Pari.  Papers,  1844,  Repts.  Committees,  Vol.  13: 

''They  say  (p.  v.),  that  Captain  Hodson,  under  authority  from  the 
British  crown,  made  in  January,  1840,  a  treaty  in  the  nature  of  a  pro- 
tectorate and  acknowledgment  of  sovereignty  with  the  Chiefs  of  the 
North  island;  but  none  with  regard  to  the  middle  and  southern  islands. 
There  Great  Britain  assumed  sovereignty,  without  even  a  nominal 
*  treaty.' 

"It  was  a  mistake  to  do  this.  Sovereignty  should  have  been  assumed 
over  all  the  islands.  Then  the  cleur  rule  is  (page  vi):  'that  all  unoccu- 
pied lands  would  forthwith  vest  in  the  Grown,  and  that,  except  by  virtue 
of  grants  from  the  Crown,  no  valid  title  to  land  could  be  established  by 
Europeans.' 

"  The  private  interest  of  the  natives  in  the  lands  they  actually  occu- 
pied could  then  have  been  acquired." 

The  report  then  points  out  the  absurdity  of  applying  to  natives 
who  have  no  real  idea  of  ownership  of  unoccupied  lands,  the  rules 
of  English  law;  and  the  evils  which  have  arisen  from  an  attempt 
to  do  so.    It  concludes  (p.  v): 

"It  would  have  been  much  better  if  no  formal  treaty  whatever  had 
been  made,  since  it  is  clear  that  the  natives  were  incapable  of  compre- 
hending the  real  force  and  meaning  of  such  a  transaction;  and  it  there- 
fore amounted  to  little  more  than  a  legal  fiction." 


INDIANS.  599 

lu  a  communication  of  August  13,  1844  (Pari.  Papers,  1845, 
Accounts  and  Papers,  Vol.  33),  Lord  Stanley,  the  Foreign  Secre- 
tary, disclaiming  responsibility  foi-  the  mistakes  of  his  predeces- 
sors, declares  that  he  takes  the  same  view  of  the  law  as  applied  to 
savage  tribes;  but  suggests  that  possibly  it  might  have  been  open 
to  doubt  whether  the  New  Zealanders  were  "  savages." 

It  has  been  stated  that  the  general  doctrine  of  the  British  Case 
is  that  (p.  149): 

•'Effective  occupation  means  the  use  and  enjoyment  of  the  resources 
of  the  country  and  the  general  control  of  its  inhabitants,,  under  the  pro- 
tection and  by  the  authority  of  a  Government  claiming  and  exercising 
jurisdiction  in  that  behalf." 

This  statement  seems  to  point  not  only  to  the  general  question 
of  control,  but  also  in  some  way  to  the  more  modern  principle,  if 
principle  it  may  bo  called,  of  protectorates.  That  this  is  its  inten- 
tion is  confirmed  by  the  marginal  title  given  in  the  British  Case, 
page  97,  "  Dutch  Protectorate,"  which  is  given  as  one  in  the  enu- 
meration of  items,  beginning  at  page  84,  by  which  the  Company 
found  it  necessary  "  to  exercise  control  of  a  political  nature  of  the 
district  in  which  trade  was  carried  on."  The  intention  is  further 
evidenced  by  the  final  statement  on  this  subject  (p.  98),  that 

''  The  exercise  by  the  Dutch  of  this  restraining  influence  is  in  itself  an 
instance  of  the  fulfillment  of  one  of  the  essential  conditions  of  a  Protec- 
torate over  native  tribes. " 

The  doctrine  of  protectorates  is  essentially  of  recent  origin. 
Hall  says  of  protectorates  that  *'  they  may  be  said  to  be  new  inter- 
national facts  "  (International  Law,  p.  133,  note). 

"In  other  words,"  says  Hall,  commenting  upon  the  declaration  of  the 
Berlin  Conference,  (International  Law,  p.  119),  "while  ancient  grounds 
of  title  are  left  to  be  dealt  with  under  the  old  customary  law,  old  claims 
of  title  if  not  fully  established  under  that  law,  and  new  titles,  whether 
acquired  by  occupation  of  unclaimed  territory,  or  through  the  inability 
of  another  State  to  justify  a  competing  claim,  must  for  the  future  be  sup- 
ported by  substantial  and  continuous  acts  of  jurisdiction.  The  declara- 
tion, it  is  true,  aflPects  only  the  coasts  of  the  Continent  of  Africa;  and 
the  representatives  of  France  and  Russia  were   careful   to  make  formal 


■ 


(JOO  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

reservations  directing  attention  to  this  fact;  the  former,  especially,  placing 
it  on  record  that  the  island  of  Madagascar  was  excluded.  Nevertheless, 
an  agreement  made  between  all  the  States  which  are  likely  to  endeavor  to 
occupy  territory,  and  covering  much  the  largest  spaces  of  coast  which,  at 
the  date  of  the  declaration,  remained  unoccupied  in  the  world,  cannot  but 
have  great  influence  upon  the  development  of  a  generally  binding  rule." 

In  considering  the  application  of  this  principle  to  the  present 
case,  three  conditions  are  to  be  noted: 

First,  the  recognized  tests  of  a  protectorate  must  be  complied 
with  in  respect  to  the  exercise  of  control  over  the  territory. 

Second,  while  protectorate  is  used  as  a  foundation  of  title  in 
cases  where  no  other  Power  has  a  claim  of  title,  no  case  is  known 
where  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  oust  a  former  occupant  by 
means  of  a  protectorate. 

Third,  the  doctrine  is  yet  so  recent  as  to  be  only  of  Conven- 
tional application,  and  can  be  extended  neither  to  questions  of 
occupation  of  an  earlier  period,  nor  to  territory  outside  of  the 
bounds  fixed  by  the  Treaty;  nor  does  it  bind  others  than  those 
who  are  parties  to  the  Treaty. 

In  respect  to  all  these  conditions  the  present  case  is  clearly  one 
to  which  the  doctrine  of  protectorates  does  not  apply. 

In  discussing  this  doctrine,  reference  will  be  largely  made  to 
the  authority  of  Mr.  Westlake,  not  only  because  he  is  an  English 
writer  of  high  official  position  and  of  high  authority  on  questions 
of  international  law,  but  because  he  is  one  of  those  who,  on  be- 
half of  England,  has  vigorously  contended  that  a  protectorate  by 
treaty  need  not  be  accompanied  by  occupation,  while  at  the  same 
time  he  discerns  and  sets  forth  the  limitations  of  such  a  protec- 
torate in  practice.  The  question  is  fully  discussed  by  him  in  a 
series  of  articles  in  the  Revue  de  Droit  International  *  which  was 
reproduced  by  him  in  a  shorter  form  in  his  work  on  International 
Law  (Cambridge,  1894). 

Mr.  Westlake  lays  down  the  general  proposition  that  Indians  or 
"Redskins"  (that  is,  American  Indians)  "and  other  similar  unor-1 

•  The  Series  of  articles  was  entitled  />«  Con/lit  Anglo-Portugaia,  and  appeared  in  1891, ' 
vol.  18,  p.  248;  1892,  vol.  24,  p.  170;  1898,  vol.  26.  p.  68. 


INDIANS.  601 

ganized  savages  do  not  count  in  international  law;  they  do  not 
constitute  a  State."     He  says  (International  Law,  p.  13Y): 

''In  the  early  times  of  international  law,  when  the  appropriation  of  a 
newly  discovered  region  was  referred  to  the  principles  which  were  held  to 
govern  the  so-called  natural  modes  of  acquisition,  the  occupation  by  un- 
civilised tribes  of  a  tract  of  which,  according  to  our  habits,  a  small  part 
ought  to  have  sufficed  for  them,  was  not  felt  to  interpose  a  serious  ob- 
stacle to  the  right  of  the  first  civilised  occupant.  The  region  was  scarcely 
distinguished  from  a  res  nullius." 

And  (p.  143): 

"  International  law  has  had  to  treat  such  nations  as  uncivilised.  It 
regulates  for  the  mutual  benefit  of  civilised  States  the  claims  which  they 
make  to  sovereignty  over  the  region,  and  leaves  the  treatment  of  tlie 
natives  to  the  conscience  of  the  state  to  which  the  sovereignty  is  awarded, 
rather  than  sanction  their  interest  being  made  an  excuse  the  more  for  war 
between  civilised  claimants,  devasting  the  region  and  the  cause  of  suffer- 
ing to  the  natives  themselves." 

(See  also  Revue  de  Droit  International,  vol.  23,  p.  246;  Inter- 
national Law,  p.  147.) 

Mr.  Westlake  quotes  as  correct  statements  of  the  law  the  de- 
cisions of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  Johnson  v. 
Mcintosh,  quoted  above;  and  summarizing  part  of  them  in  his 
own  words,  he  says; 

"  The  Indians  possessed  nothing  which  resembled  sovereignty,  as  the 
term  is  understood  in  Europe  and  Asia,  for  they  were  hardly  *  united  in 
a  society '  by  a  shade  of  organized  government.  Such  a  government  alone 
can  add  the  idea  and  the  reality  of  sovereignty  to  the  possession  which  re- 
sults from  occupation  under  a  private  title.  Possessing  neither  the  con- 
ception nor  the  reality  of  sovereignty,  they  could  not  transfer  it  to  an- 
other. The  Europeans  who  were  the  first  to  discover  the  territories  and  to 
establish  themselves  there,  acquired  the  sovereignty  of  the  territories  for 
the  States  to  which  they  belonged,  and  it  passed  to  the  colonists  when  the 
latter  obt  lined  their  independence.  The  exercise  of  this  right  was  not 
limited  in  the  hands  of  any  of  its  holders  by  any  legal  claim  ;  it  was  only 
limited  by  the  respect  which  conscience  imposed  for  the  right  of  occupa- 
tion of  the  Indians." 

The  treaties   at   the  Peace  of    Paris,   of   1Y68,    virtually  as- 

Imed  the  right  of  the   whites  to  the  whole  continent,  without 


^02  ADVERSE   HOLDING. 

any  legard  to  the  supposed  rights  of  the  Indians;  and  partitioned 
it  definitely,  by  metes  and  bounds,  between  England,  France  and 
Spain  {Johnson  v.  Mcintosh,  8  Wheaton,  583-4). 

In  the  case  of  the  American  Indians,  and  similar  savage  tribes, 
without  organized  government  or  the  capacity  to  understand  it  in 
the  European  sense,  the  theory  of  protectorate  does  not  apply.  So 
WestJake  says  {Revue,  vol.  23,  p.  264)  that  '•  Procto rates"  are 
known  to  international  law.  "  But  the  condition  itself  indicates 
that  the  protected  States  which  submit  to  it  are  veritable  States, 
and  not  mere  savage  tribes." 

Mr.  Westlake  also  states  (vol.  24,  p.  ITO),  the  circumstances 
which  attended  the  making  of  the  "  treaties"  with  African  chiefs, 
and  points  out  their  farcical  character.  He  notes  (p.  191)  that  on 
the  so-called  installation  of  a  native  under  alleged  Portuguese  au- 
thority, the  presents  and  tribute  were  paid  by  the  Portuguese,  and 
not  to  them,  and  says,  "the  lack  of  reality  is  sufficiently  ap- 
parent." 

All  his  comments  upon  these  circumstances  may  be  applied 
with  equal  force,  to  the  alleged  Dutch  control  over  the  Indians 
in  Guiana.  Here,  also,  the  tribute  was  paid  by  the  Dutch  and  not 
to  them,  and  the  lack  of  reality  is  sufficiently  apparent. 

The  description  of  the  surrounding  circumstances  might  in 
many  cases  answer  equally  well  for  what  happened  in  the  relation 
of  the  Indians  with  the  Dutch  of  Essequibo,  although  in  the  case 
of  the  Portuguese  in  Africa,  the  ceremonies  were  more  extensive 
and  more  significant.  Westlake  {Revue,  vol.  25,  p.  58)  describes 
the  form  frequently  adopted,  which  consisted  in  giving  to  a  native 
chief  rum,  guns  and  a  Portuguese  flag,  which  he  hoisted  on  a  pole. 
In  one  case,  a  chief  returned  an  English  flag,  proposing  to  join  the 
Portuguese.  The  English  official  sent  him  a  larger  one,  telling 
him  that  when  he  hoisted  that  every  one  would  know  that  he  was 
a  "great  chief."* 


•  BlatBook  Africa,  No.  8  (1890),  p.  220. 


UiPiAML  MS 

authoritr— an  aathotiftj  cnHj  pfetendad  bj  iiie  RrHidi  ffaimffnt 
lo  tbe  ttfiiitotj — aft  naught. 

As  was  ftbe  case  with  llie  Poiii^;iieee  id  Africa,  Ute  pnaentB 
lod  the  tribuie  wege  ^aid  b j  the  Dat4:iL,  not  to  tbem.  It  waa  wcil 
md  bf  Goremor  Godd,  of  Eawqiiibo,  in  September,  1813,  tisat 

It  is  obriow;  hovetn;  AataarCokmies  ate  tribatvietto  tbe  ladiw; 
fkHe  tbe  pnper  Sfirteai  of  p(dief  woald  be  to  oMbe  tbem  allies,  looldi^  ti> 
»forprolcelMHi''(a  C.Y,2l$^ 

So  far  from  maintaining  tiie  peace  within  the  dispoted  terri- 

',  the  Older  of  the  Datch  GoTemor  to  his  subordinates  was 

maintain  neatralitj  in   the  wars   between  the  tribes,  and 

that  in  tbe  faoe  of  the  fact  that  these  wais  were  destractiTe 

of  Dotcfa  trade  interests.    There  eoald,  in  the  natare  of  thin^  be 

nger  disdaimer  of  a  ri^|it  to  control  the  Indians. 

'  the  instances  of  failure  to  exercise  such  control  maj 


ij    X  •  ■•^   \-tj-r: 


Director-Oeneral  wasgreatij  exercised  to  estabKsfa 
»atch  post  in  CitfnnL  He  appealed  to  the  Indians,  and  re- 
.edtiieresaltthns(V.  C.  II.  U»): 

'  Wbaterer  trmriile  I  bare  takea,  and  vbaterer  pranses  I  bare  aude; 

.i«  matt  beca  able  t»  gtt  anj  Iniiaas  np  to  tbe  presnt  to  aid  sm  ia 

^aUiAia^  tbe  Post  ia  C^oeaj,  and  witboat  their  bdp  it  eaaaot  be 

•^^eaaae  with  dares  it  is  not  oalj  toe  eoailj  bat  abo  too  dmyraan 

am  in  i^reat  diftealtics  witik  this  voik,  and  ibe  rr  citaWifhaMat 

.'^oat  ia,  ia  aij opiaioa,  of  tihe gw atrat  mi < sail j.** 

Tbe  Dotdi  cootrol  did  not  suffice  to  procore  the  aid  of  a  sinc^ 
Indian  in  a  woHIe  that  the  Director-General  thoo^t  was  essential 
lo  the  aafstj  of  the  ocikmj. 

In  Febraaty.  17^  flie  Dotdi  colonies  were  in  great  distress 
and  fear  bj  reason  of  the  fact  that  escaping  dares  had  establisfaed 
a  formidatde  settlement  in  the  interior.  Thehdpof  fheAccswsf 
tribe  was  needed.  Twooftibeir '* Owls"  fisited  the Oommandeor 
rt  I>emerara,  arho  gave  this  acooont  of  it  (B.  C.  m,  1^): 

"After  I  badveieoiMd  then  with  a  gtaas  of  bcaadf  aad  pnaeated 
<tf  tbeaiwitbaaait  of  mj  etoy-daj  dodwii,  I  adced  tbeat  (afier 


i 


fiOe  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

having  acquainted  them  with  the  reason  of  my  sending  for  them)  whether 
they  were  willing  to  attack  the  negroes,  or  cut  off  their  retreat  if  the 
negroes  were  attacked  by  the  Caribs  and  put  to  flight." 

Brandy  and  old  clothevs!     And   were  the  Indians  "  willing*' ? 
Is  this  the  conduct  and  language  of  one  who  is  asserting  control    ; 
of  these  people  as  subjects?  ' 

But  the  Caribs,  not  the  Accaways,  seem  to  have  done  the  work.    : 
They  killed  seven  men,  one  woman  and  a  giil,  and  the  Director- 
General  reported  (B.  C.  Ill,  166): 

"  They  have  brought  seven  right  hands  to  me,  and  I  am  just  now  occu- 
pied in  paying  them." 

This,  we  suppose,  is  given  as  evidence  that  Dutch  civilization 
and  political  control  pervaded  the  lodges  of  this  tribe. 

Some  suspicions,  however,  afterwards  arose  that  a  trick  had 
been  played  and  that  the  right  hands  the  Director- General  had 
paid  for  were  not  those  of  negro  slaves,  but  of  Indians.  Of  this 
he  said  (B.  C.  Ill,  178): 

"  There  was  a  report  here  that  Tampoko  aud  the  Caribs  had  not  killed 
negroes  but  Indians,  and   that  the  hands  brought  down  were  the  hands  of 
Indians.      If  such  were  found  to  be  true  I  have  never  seen  a  rascally  trick 
executed  more  carefully  and  clothed  with  more  feasible  circumstances,  and    j 
I  think  that  Satan  himself  might  be  deceived  in  this  way." 

But  if  the  Caribs  had  not  become  tricky,  it  was  not  for  want 
of  a  schoolmaster. 

In  February,   1768,  there  was  a  notable  incident  illustrating 
Dutch  control,  an  account  of  which  is  given   in  the  evidence 
annexed  to  the  British  Case  (B.  C.  Ill,  161).     The  Director-Gen-,^ 
eral  reported  that  he  had  been  advised  of  the  arrival  of  twelve) 
soldiers,  sent   by  the  Company   to  reinforce  the  Dutch  post,  of* 
whom  it  was  said  that  they  were  "good  recruits  for  Orinoco,, 
because  they  are  nearly  all  French."     He  reported  that  they  wej 
all  French,  and  that  all  but  one  or  two  were  Roman  Catholics.] 
Frenchmen  were  not  wanted. 


INDIANS.  607 

The  Director-General  said : 

'•III  addition  to  this  all  tlie  Indians  have  declared  that  they  will  have 
no  French  at  the  Posts,  a  troop  of  more  than  100  Warouwans,  all  well 
armed,  iiaving  already  arrived  at  the  Post,  Maroco  saying  that  they  came  to 
see  whether  there  was  a  Frenchman  there,  and  intending  to  kill  him  if  it 
were  so." 

This  threat  was  taken  seriously.  The  Dutch  were  not  even 
able  to  control  the  matter  of  the  personnel  of  their  own  posts,  as 
against  the  Indians.  The  Frenchman,  Pierre  Martin,  who  had 
been  somewhere  on  the  Cuyuni,  had  been  compelled  to  leave 
there,  as  the  Director-General  (B.  C.  Ill,  162)  said,  "the  Indians 
flatly  refusing  to  come  and  live  anywhere  near  the  post  so  long  as 
he  is  there.     They  will  have  a  Dutchman,  they  say." 

In  April,  1768,  the  Director-General  reported  (B.  0.  Ill,  164): 

"Having  also  been  obliged  to  remove  Pierre  Martin,  the  Postholder  of 
Cuyuni  (because  the  Indians  will  on  no  account  have  a  Frenchman  there) 
as  well  as  the  one  in  Maroco,  I  have  no  one  there  now  but  the  two  assist- 
ants. It  now  remains  to  be  seen  whether  the  Indians  of  Maykouny, 
whither  Pierre  Martin  has  gone,  will  exhibit  the  same  feelings,  in  which 
case  I  shall  have  to  discharge  the  man  nolens  volens.  I  fear  very  much 
Itat  it  Avill  be  so,  because  in  Maykouny  they  are  mostly  Warouws  (the 
nation  which  commenced  and  continued  the  work  in  Maroco)  where  they 
came  to  the  Post  in  great  numbers  and  well  armed  with  the  openly 
'X pressed  intention  of  murdering  a  French  Postholder  had  they  found  one 
there." 

Here  we  have  Indian  control  of  the  Dutch  "chiefs."  The 
Dutch  trembled  before  the  armed  Indians  who  came  to  the  post, 
and  acknowledged  their  inability  to  protect  their  own  Postholdei*s 
against  the  Indian  demand  for  their  dismissal. 

The  Dutch  West  India  Company  approved  of  this.  In  a  com- 
munication to  the  Director-General,  in  July,  1768  (B.  C.  Ill,  180), 
they  said: 

"  It  being  hard  to  catch  hares  with  unwilling  hounds,  you  cannot  do 
otherwise  than  accede  to  the  wish  of  the  Indians  in  Cuyuni  and  Moruca, 
and  send  no  Frenchmen  thither  as  Postholders,  and  therefore  not  even 
Pierre  Martin,  good  and  capable  though  he  may  be." 


006  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

having  acquainted  them  with  the  reason  of  my  sending  for  them)  whether 
they  were  willing  to  attack  the  negroes,  or  cut  off  their  letreat  if  the 
negroes  were  attacked  by  the  Caribs  and  put  to  flight."' 

Brandy  and  old  clothes!  And  were  the  Indians  "  willing "  ? 
Is  this  the  conduct  and  language  of  one  who  is  asserting  control 
of  these  people  as  subjects? 

But  the  Caribs,  not  the  Accaways,  seem  to  have  done  the  work. 
They  killed  seven  men,  one  woman  and  a  girl,  and  the  Director- 
General  reported  (B.  C.  Ill,  166):    . 

"  They  have  brought  seven  right  hands  to  me,  and  I  am  just  now  occu- 
pied in  paying  them." 

This,  we  suppose,  is  given  as  evidence  that  Dutch  civilization 
and  political  control  pervaded  the  lodges  of  this  tribe. 

Some  suspicions,  however,  afterwards  arose  that  a  trick  had 
been  played  and  that  the  right  hands  the  Director- General  had 
paid  for  were  not  those  of  negro  slaves,  but  of  Indians.  Of  this 
he  said  (B.  0.  Ill,  178): 

"  Theie  was  u  report  here  that  Tampoko  and  the  Caribs  had  not  killed 
negroes  but  Indians,  and  that  the  hands  brought  down  were  the  hands  of 
Indians.  If  such  were  found  to  be  true  I  have  never  seen  a  rascally  trick 
executed  more  carefully  and  clothed  with  more  feasible  circumstances,  and 
I  think  that  Satan  himself  might  be  deceived  in  this  way." 

But  if  the  Caribs  had  not  become  tricky,  it  was  not  for  want 
of  a  schoolmaster. 

In  February,  1768,  there  was  a  notable  incident  illustrating 
Dutch  control,  an  account  of  which  is  given  in  the  evideucej 
annexed  to  the  British  Case  (B.  C.  Ill,  161).  The  Director-Genl 
eral  reported  that  he  had  been  advised  of  the  arrival  of  twelve 
soldiers,  sent  by  the  Company  to  reinforce  the  Dutch  post, 
whom  it  was  said  that  they  were  "good  recruits  for  OrinoccS 
because  they  are  nearly  all  French."  He  reported  that  they  wei^j 
all  French,  and  that  all  but  one  or  two  were  Roman  Catholics., 
Frenchmen  were  not  wanted. 


INDIANS.  607 

The  Director-General  said: 

''III  addition  to  this  all  the  Indians  have  declared  that  they  will  have 
no  French  at  the  Posts,  a  troop  of  more  than  100  Warouwans,  all  well 
armed,  having  already  arrived  at  the  Post,  Maroeo  saying  that  they  came  to 
see  whether  there  was  a  Frenchman  there,  and  intending  to  kill  him  if  it 
were  so." 

This  threat  was  taken  seriously.  The  Dutch  were  not  even 
able  to  control  the  matter  of  the  personnel  of  their  own  posts,  as 
against  the  Indians.  The  Frenchman,  Pierre  Martin,  who  had 
been  somewhere  on  the  Cuyuni,  had  been  compelled  to  leave 
there,  as  the  Director-General  (B.  C.  Ill,  162)  said,  "the  Indians 
flatly  refusing  to  come  and  live  anywhere  near  the  post  so  long  as 
he  is  there.     They  will  have  a  Dutchman,  they  say." 

In  April,  1768,  the  Director-General  reported  (B.  0.  Ill,  164): 

"Having  also  been  obliged  to  remove  Pierre  Martin,  the  Postholder  of 
Cnynni  (because  the  Indians  will  on  no  account  have  a  Frenchman  there) 
as  well  as  the  one  in  Maroeo,  I  have  no  one  there  now  but  the  two  assist- 
ants. It  now  remains  to  be  seen  whether  the  Indians  of  Maykouny, 
whither  Pierre  Martin  has  gone,  will  exhibit  the  same  feelings,  in  which 
case  I  shall  have  to  discharge  the  man  nolens  volens.  I  fear  very  much 
iliat  it  will  be  so,  because  in  Maykouny  they  are  mostly  Warouws  (the 
nation  which  commenced  and  continued  the  work  in  Maroeo)  where  they 
I  :ime  to  the  Post  in  great  numbers  and  well  armed  Avith  the  openly 
expressed  intention  of  murdering  a  French  Postholder  had  they  found  one 
there." 

Here  we  have  Indian  control  of  the  Dutch  "chiefs."  The 
Dutch  trembled  before  the  armed  Indians  who  came  to  the  post, 
and  acknowledged  their  inability  to  protect  their  own  Postholdei*s 
against  the  Indian  demand  for  their  dismissal. 

The  Dutch  West  India  Company  approved  of  this.  In  a  com- 
munication to  the  Director-General,  in  July,  1768  (B.  C.  Ill,  180), 
they  said: 

"It  being  hard  to  catch  hares  with  unwilling  hounds,  you  cannot  do 
•therwise  than  accede  to  the  wish   of  the  Indians  in  Cuyuni  and  Moruca, 
-^iid  send  no  Frenchmen  thither  as  Postholders,  and  therefore  not  even 
rre  Martin,  good  and  capable  though  he  may  be." 


g0g  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

But  the  Company  could  not  have  the  services  of  this  honest  and 
capable  man,  because  the  Indians  would  not  consent. 

How  thoroughly  the  Indians  were  unaware  of  their  subjugation 
by  the  Dutch  appears  in  an  account  given  by  the  Director-General 
in  February,  1Y69,  in  which  he  said  (B.  C.  IV,  3): 

"  The  nation  of  the  Caribs,  my  Lords,  are  looked  upon  as  nobles  among 
the  Indians.  It  is  a  very  good  thing  to  have  them  as  allies  or  friends,  for 
they  render  excellent  services,  but  they  are  formidable  enemies,  capable  of  | 
more  bravery  and  resistance  than  one  would  think.  When  their  principal 
or  great  Owls  come  to  me,  they  immediately  take  a  chair  and  sit  down,  and 
will  eat  and  drink  nothing  but  what  I  have  myself,  and  they  call  me  by  no 
other  name  than  that  of  'mate'  or  'brother.'  " 

These  "noble"  Indians  were  not  aware  that  the  true  mode  of 
address  was  "  Master."  They  asserted  equality.  They  were  allies, 
not  subjects,  of  the  Dutch. 

This  distinctly  appears  again  in  the  report  of  the  Director- 
General  of  April  4,  1769.     He  said  (B.  C.  IV,  11): 

'*  March  16. — The  chief  of  the  Caribs,  who  is  now  here,  goes  up  the 
river  to-day.  He  has  promised  me  to  attack  the  murderers  of  the  Post- 
holder,  and  to  hold  all  his  people  in  readiness  in  case  we  might  have  need 
of  them.  Commandant  Backer  told  me  this  morning  that  he  would  like  to 
come  up  the  river,  and  asked  him  whether  he  would  then  let  him  be  master. 
He  answered,  '  No,  1  am  master  of  the  Caribs.  You  can  be  master  of  the 
whites  and  of  the  other  nations,  and  then  we  can  together  become  masters 
of  everything." 

This  is  rather  an  impressive  declaration.  The  opportunity 
was  ripe  for  an  assertion  by  the  Director-General  that  the  Dutch 
were  masters  of  the  Caribs,  but  fear  of  his  own  life  and  of  the 
peace  of  his  settlement  made  it  impossible  for  him  to  put  forward 
the  pretension  that  is  now  urged  in  his  behalf.  We  do  not  know 
whether  Commandant  Backer  went  up  the  river,  but  we  do  know 
that  if  he  did  he  was  not  in  the  command  of  the  Caribs. 

The  Director-General's  situation  at  that  time  was  rather  full 
of  distresses,  which  he  set  forth  in  the  next  paragraph: 

**  But,  my  Lords,  allow  me  to  ask  what  is  now  to  be  done  to  get  food 
for  your  Lordships'  slaves  ?    The  salting  is  now  entirely  stopped,  not  alone 


INDIANS.  609 

in  the  mouth  of  the  Orinocque,  where  we  had  carried  on  the  fishery  from 
time  immemorial,  but  there  are  neither  cnnoes  nor  corrials  to  be  got  for 
the  plantations  or  the  Fort  along  the  whole  of  the  sea-coast,  and  we  are  shut 
in  on  all  sides.  1  must  now,  nolens  volens,  buy  from  the  English,  or  allow 
your  Lordships'  slaves  to  go  without  rations.  .  .  .  There  being  noth- 
ing on  the  plantations  and  the  out-runners  having  come  back  empty- 
handed  after  exposing  themselves  to  the  greatest  danger,  and  losing  their 
men  and  boats." 

The  Director-General  was  truly  not  in  a  position  to  demand  the 
title  of  "  Master." 

In  1767  the  Director-General  reported  (V.  C.  II,  170)  that  the 
Indians  "are  unwilling  to  do  the  least  thing  for  the  Postholder, 
and  that  even  when  he  orders  the  passing  boats  to  lie  to  to  see 
whether  there  are  any  runaways  in  them,  they  obstinately  refuse 
to  do  so,  and  when  he  threatens  to  shoot  upon  them  they  reply 
that  they  have  bows  and  arrows  with  which  to  answer." 

In  1769  the  Director-General  narrated  his  efforts  to  get  a  Post- 
holder  to  go  to  the  "  Crystal  Mine."  Not  one  of  his  Postholders 
at  Arinda  had  been  willing  to  execute  this  purpose,  giving  various 
pretexts;  but  the  true  cause,  as  the  Director-General  said,  was 
their  fear  of  the  savage  nations  living  in  those  parts,  though  these 
fears  were  "  ungrounded,"  as  he,  in  the  security  of  the  principal 
post,  thought.  But  a  man  was  found  to  hunt  for  the  "Crystal 
Mine,"  "  somewhere  up  in  Essequibo."  Being  a  representative  of 
the  Dutch  pov/er,  the  nation  that  "controlled"  these  tribes  and 
had  "  sovereignty  "  over  the  territory,  he  thought  that  he  might 
venture  to  dig  for  crystal;  but  the  Director- General  reported  that 
"  when  he  wished  to  dig  up  the  crystal  which  grows  there  in  many 
places  in  a  red  dry  soil,  the  natives  would  not  allow  him  to  do  so  " 
(B.  C.  IV,  17). 

Besides  "a  few  instructions  how  to  behave,"  this  man  had  been 
told  by  the  Director-General  "to  try  and  obtain,  in  a  friendly 
manner,  permission  from  the  Wapissannes  to  cross  the  Maho  and 
go  to  the  neighboring  nations." 

In  November,  1770,  the  Director-General  found  himself  utterly 


fll(,  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

unable  to  prevent  the  desertion  of  his  slaves,  and  sent  to  the  Post- 
bolder  of  Arinda  "to  ask  the  Carib  Owls,  in  my  name,  to  send 
fifty  men  to  watch  the  Dutch  plantations." 

Even  as  late  as  1840,  in  the  correspondence  between  Viscount 
Palmerston  and  Sir  R.  Ker  Porter  (B.  C.  VII,  71),  the  tribes  living 
near  the  frontier  are  correctly  spoken  of  by  Lord  Palmerston  as 
"independent  Indian  tribes." 

It  appears  from  the  above  that  the  Dutch  were  very  far  from 
exercising  anything  that  could  be  called  actual  control.  Still 
less  was  their  control  exclusive.  It  was  contested  from  the 
beginning.  The  Dutch  correspondence  is  full  of  accounts  of 
threats  and  assaults  made  by  the  Spaniards  against  and  upon 
Dutchmen  in  the  territory,  their  traders  or  pursuers  of  fugitive 
slaves,  or  employees  of  the  Colonial  authorities.  They  are  equally 
full  of  accounts  of  Spanish  assertion  of  control  over  the  Indians 
manifested  in  acts  of  force.  The  Dutch  Indian  alliances  them- 
selves were  based  upon  a  recognition  of  the  necessity  of  seeking 
aid  to  resist  the  Spaniards  within  the  territory,  and  the  record 
shows  the  failure  of  these  attempts.  The  Spaniards  in  the  dis- 
puted territory,  both  in  the  interior  and  in  the  coast,  were  con- 
tinually asserting  their  right  to  control  the  Indians;  they  pursued, 
captured,  chastised,  compelled.  Their  relation  to  the  Indians  was 
not  that  of  suppliants,  but  that  of  masters.  It  is  suggested  that 
this  mastery  was  sometimes  cruel,  but  it  cannot  be  denied  that  it 
was  the  assertion  of  a  right  to  control,  and  in  sharp  contrast  to 
the  bribing,  coaxing  policy  of  the  Dutch. 

A  few  instances  may  be  noted.  In  1Y52  "  the  Spaniards  have 
attacked  and  driven  away  the  Caribs  below  Oronoque,  and  these 
have  all  retreated  to  our  side"  (V.  C.  II,  109).  In  1754  "thre^: 
barques  and  nine  large  canoes  have  arrived  there  [Oronoque],  and 
have  sailed  up  to  the  fort,  and  that  the  Surinam  wanderers  and 
most  of  the  Carib  Indians  have  retired  from  Barima"(/rf.,  116). 
In  1759  *'  the  Spaniards  continue  to  stay  where  they  are,  and  to 
entrap  and  drive  away  all  the  Caraibans  living  there"  {Id.,  133). 


INDIANS.  611 

"Cajoeny,  where  since  the  raid  upon  the  Post  by  the  Spaniards 
there  are  no  more  Indians "  (Jd.,  142).  In  1761  "a  party  of 
Spaniards  and  Spanish  Indians  in  Cajoeny  have  been  down  to  the 
lowest  fall  where  your  Lordships'  indigo  plantation  was  situated, 
driving  all  the  Indians  thence,  and  even,  it  is  said,  having  killed 
several.  The  Indians  sent  in  complaint  upon  complaint "  {Id.,  145). 
In  1762  "  they  [the  Spaniards]  are  not  yet  quiet,  but  send  detach- 
ments trom  time  to  time,  which  come  down  as  far  as  the  lowest 
fall,  close  to  the  dwelling  of  your  Lordships'  Creoles,  by  which 
both  the  settlers  and  our  Indians  are  continually  being  alarmed, 
and  take  refuge  each  time  down  stream"  {Id.,  147).  In  1762 
"the  Spanish  Indians  of  the  Missions  continue  to  send  out  daily 
patrols  as  far  as  the  great  fall  ...  all  the  Caraibans  have 
also  left  that  river  "  {Id.,  149).  "  At  the  time  of  that  occurrence 
[the  capture  of  the  Cuyuni  postj  the  Caraibans  were  full  of 
courage  and  ready  for  all  kinds  of  undertaking;  now  they  are  all 
driven  away  from  there  and  have  retired  right  up  intoEssequibo  " 
{Id.,  151).  In  1763  "  this  [isj  not  the  time  to  think  of  the  re- 
establishment  of  the  Post  in  Cajoeny.  That  matter  will  give  us 
plenty  of  work  to  do  when,  with  the  blessing  of  God,  all  is  at  rest 
and  in  peace,  because,  the  Spaniards  having  driven  all  the  Indians 
out  of  the  river,  it  will  be  no  small  matter  to  get  all  the  necessary 
buildings  in  readiness  there  "  [Id.,  155),  In  1768  "  The  Caraibans 
of  Barima  .  .  .  complained  that  some  of  our  deserters  with 
a  party  of  Spaniards,  were  continually  molesting  them  in  Barima 
and  robbing  them  of  everything"  {Id.,  178).  In  1769  the  Spanish 
Governor  "has  totally  ruined  it  [the  fishery]  by  driving 
the  Warouws  out  of  the  islands  "  {Id.,  181).  In  1769  Storm  says: 
*'  .  .  .  nor  can  we  be  warned  in  any  way  by  Indians,  there 
being  no  more  of  these  in  that  river  [Cuyuni).  They  did  begin  to 
settle  there  again  when  the  post  was  re-established,  but  the  raid 
made  by  the  Spaniards  last  year,  when  a  large  party  of  Indians 
were  captured  and  taken  away,  has  filled  the  rest  with  terror,  and 
they  are  gradually  drawing  off"  {Id.,  182).     "  The  Spaniards  are 


512  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

carrying  off  the  Indians  from  Maroco  "  {Id.,  183).  In  May,  1T69, 
"  the  Spaniards  had  come  through  Pomeroon  .  .  .  and  were 
kidnapping  the  Indians.  ...  As  for  the  Caribs,  they  are,  it 
seems,  abandoning  their  land  Barima"  {Id.,  188).  "  The  unex- 
pected invasion  of  the  Spaniards  .  .  .  calls  for  your  Lord- 
ships' most  serious  consideration  .  .  .  Your  Lordship's  Post 
at  Maroco  has  been  entirely  ruined,  all  the  Indians  who  still 
remained  having  fled,  and  none  now  remaining  round  or  near  the 
Po8t"(/d.,  190). 

In  1769  *'  the  Spaniards  in  Barima,  having  been  reinforced  by 
another  boat,  had  at  last  attacked  the  Caraibans  themselves,  cap- 
tured several  of  the  same,  carried  them  off,  burnt  their  houses 
and  ruined  their  plantations"  {Id.,  191). 

Passages  like  the  above  might  be  multiplied.  All  of  them  rest^ 
upon  Dutch  testimony. 

Another  necessary  requirement  of  this  exclusive  political  con- 
trol, which  the  Tribunal  are  given  a  discretion  to  regard  as  the 
equivalent  of  actual  adverse  possession,  would  seem  to  be  that,  as 
the  territory  was  at  the  time  claimed  by  Spain,  the  acts  and  j 
verbal  intercourse  upon  which  the  transfer  of  dominion  is  rested 
should  either  have  been  expressly  notified  to  Spain  or  of  such  a 
public  character  that  she  would  be  charged  with  notice  of  them.    |i 

Surely,  it  will  not  be  contended  that  secret  intercourse,  or  j 
intercourse  of  such  a  nature  that  only  the  parties  to  it  would  have  | 
knowledge,  can  be  treated  as  an  exclusive  political  control.  { 

One  of  the  requirements  of  a  good  prescription  or  adverse  occu-: 
pation  is  publicity  or  notoriety.  The  nation  against  whose  claim 
a  title  is  set  up  must  have  had  notice  or  be  chargeable  with  notice^ 
of  the  adverse  occupation.  It  must  follow,  therefore,  that  every 
act  of  intercourse  between  the  Dutch  and  the  Indians,  that  was  o^ 
a  character  unHkely  to  be  known  except  to  the  parties  to  it,  must 
be  put  out  of  consideration  in  determining  this  question. 

An  occasional  procedure  before  a  Dutch  magistrate,  or  an  occ 
sional  visit  of  a  Dutch  Postholder  to  the  Indians,  or  of  an  Indij 


INDIANS.  613 

chief  to  the  Postholder,  cannot  be  made  the  basis  of  a  claim  that 
the  Dutch  were  exercising  exclusive  political  control. 

Here  the  relation,  such  as  it  was,  between  the  Dutch  and  the 
Indians  was  studiously  concealed  from  the  Spaniards,  by  the  Com- 
pany's orders  to  bring  about  certain  acts  of  the  Caribs  but  "  with- 
out openly  appearing  therein." 

So,  too,  political  control  must  be  continuous  and  uninterrupted. 

In  the  case  here  presented  there  is  no  pretence  of  a  written 
treaty.  The  results  claimed  are  derived  solely  from  a  suggestion  of 
acts  or  a  course  of  dealing  between  the  Dutch  and  the  Indians.  We 
think  it  is  clear  that  during  the  period  of  the  Dutch  occupation 
the  Indians  never  accepted  the  Dutch  as  their  masters.  Indi- 
viduals of  the  tribes  located  themselves  in  the  settlements  and 
took  employments  from  the  Dutch,  but  the  tribes  never  at  any 
time  understood  that  the  presents  given  to  them  by  the  Dutch 
were  symbols  of  Dutch  control  and  of  a  surrender  of  their  tribal 
authority;  nor  were  they  so  intended. 

Some  of  the  incidents  that  appear  in  the  case  give  positive  evi- 
dence that  the  Indians  understood  their  relations  with  the  Dutch 
to  be  those  of  mere  friendliness,  of  which  the  presents  bestowed 
were  evidence,  and  of  agreements  to  unite  in  acts  of  hostility 
against  the  Spaniards.  In  the  whole  course  of  the  Dutch  inter- 
course with  the  Indians,  we  think  we  may  safely  say  that  there 
was  no  case  in  which  the  Dutch  controlled  or  attempted  to  con- 
trol the  Indians  as  subjects.  That  this  was  the  relation  of  the 
colony  to  the  Indians,  distinctly  appears  from  the  despatch  of 
Governor  Carmichael,  January  18,  1813,  inclosing  a  letter  from 
"the  Protector  of  the  Indians,"  who  said  (B.  C.  V,  203-4)  that 
he  had  been  in  the  habit  of  calling  "for  the  assistance  of  the  In- 
dians at  different  periods  since  the  year  1Y95,  during  which  space 
of  time  I  know  of  no  Treaty  or  Agreement  with  the  Chiefs  of 
Indian  tribes  implying  anything  of  the  nature  of  subsidy  or 
tribute." 

It  seems  from  the  Governor's  letter  that  the  Chief  of  the 


(514  ADVERSE   HOLDING. 

Caribs  bad  come  not  long  before  with  300  savages,  with  "  rather 
strong  language  and  insolent  demands;"  that  on  another  occasion 
"five  chiefs  of  the  Arrowauks,  with  their  followers,  had  come 
with  threats."  The  "Protector"  said:  "It  was  not,  I  believe, 
thought  expedient  to  repulse  them  suddenly."  So  they  were  told 
that  presents  would  be  sent  for  from  England. 

It  remains  to  examine  the   facts  wrhich   are  alleged  by   the 
British  Case  in  support  of  the  theory   that  relations  with  th( 
Indians  in  the  disputed  territory  amounted  to  "  general  control  oi 
its  inhabitants,  under  the   protection   and  by  the  authority  of 
Government  claiming  and  exercising  jurisdiction  in  that  behalf.'^ 

From  the  marginal  titles  borne  by  these  paragraphs  of  th< 
British  Case,  they  would  seem  to  be  very  important  matters,  such 
as  "Maintenance  of  the  Peace,"  "Protection  of  Indians,"  "Juris- 
diction over  Indians,"  "  Appointment  of  Indian  Captains,"  "Mil- 
itary Services,"  and  the  like.  The  titles,  however,  are  far  awa] 
from  the  evidence  to  which  they  relate.  The  first  of  these  ii 
"  Maintenance  of  the  Peace"  (B.  C,  p.  84).  ''  Maintenance  of  th< 
peace"  is  a  very  important  feature  of  police  control.  None  pei 
haps  can  be  said  to  be  more  important  in  any  civilized  country 
As  an  evidence  of  political  control,  maintenance  of  the  peace 
where  it  exists,  is  a  fact  of  great  importance.  "  Maintenance  o 
the  peace,"  however,  as  used  in  the  British  Case,  does  not  refei 
to  this  familiar  exercise  of  the  police  power.  It  means  the  main- 
tenance of  peace  between  Indian  tribes. 

These  instances  are  sufficiently  dealt  with  in  the  Venezuelan 
Counter-Case,  and  the  comments  there  made  need  not  be  repeated 
here.  Four  instances  are  mentioned,  in  a  period  of  one  hundred 
and  sixty-six  years,  to  prove  the  fact  that  during  this  period  the 
Dutch  maintained  peace  between  the  Indian  tribes.  In  two  of 
these  instances  efforts  were  made  to  bring  about  a  peace,  but  the 
Indians  refused  to  listen  to  them.  In  the  third  case,  which  was 
in  Essequibo  itself,  the  Dutch  commanding  officer  was  ordered 
"not  to  interfere  directly  or  indirectly  in  the  quarrels  of  the  In- 


INDIANS.  filo 

dians."  This  is  the  evidence  in  support  of  the  proposition.  In 
opposition  to  it  one  conspicuous  fact  stands  out,  not  as  a  thing 
which  finds  more  or  less  imperfect  illustration  in  four  occasions 
in  a  century  and  a  half,  but  as  a  thing  which  was  illustrated  prob- 
ably every  year  in  the  history  of  the  colony,  for  it  was  connected 
with  a  practice  than  which  none  was  more  charactertistic  or 
persistent  a  feature  of  the  colonial  history  of  Essequibo.  This 
was  the  trade  in  "  poitos,"  or  Indian  slaves. 

The  manner  of  obtaining  these  slaves  was  very  simple;  it  was 
by  inducing  the  Indians  near  the  Essequibo  to  make  war  on  the 
Indians  a  little  further  off  and,  as  an  incident  of  the  war,  to  cap- 
ture their  women  and  children,  who  w^ere  then  bought  by  the 
Dutch.  This  was  a  form  of  trade  which  had  many  incidental  ad- 
vantages. It  was  one  way  in  which  the  adjacent  Indians  were 
enabled  to  profit  by  their  relations  with  the  Dutch,  and  had  a 
large  influence  in  bringing  about  that  community  of  interest  which 
was  the  dominant  factor  in  the  friendly  relations  between 
the  colonists  and  the  natives.  Of  course,  a  community  of  interest 
is  not  control,  and  presents  no  elements  of  control.  It  explains 
much,  however,  in  the  relations  with  the  natives.  It  gave  an  out- 
let to  the  martial  spirit  of  the  Caribs,  which  otherwise  might  have 
expended  itself  upon  the  Dutch.  It  lent  an  additional  zest  to  their 
favorite  occupation  of  making  war,  because  they  always  got  an 
immediate  and  solid  return  for  the  spoils  which  they  brought 
back.  Finally,  it  was  advantageous  in  developing  a  hostile  spirit 
towards  the  Spaniards,  as  the  Spaniards  were  opposed  to  this  slave 
trade. 

Thus,  Storm  in  1746  reported  (B.  C.  11,  46)  that  a  fort  had  been 
erected  by  the  Spaniards  up  in  the  Cuyuni  and  that  they  were 
thinking  of  founding  another,  "  whereat  the  inhabitants  are  very 
much  aggrieved,  and  the  Carib  Indians  a  great  deal  more  so,  since 
it  perfectly  closes  the  slave  traffic  in  that  direction  from  which 
alone  that  nation  derive  their  livelihood." 

This  one  sentence  of  the  Commandeur  throws  a  curious  side 


R 


gjg  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

light  on  the  British  claim  that  the  Dutch  were  the  maintainers  of 
peace  among  the  Indians. 

It  is  quite  possible  that  the  Spanish  authorities  of  the  eight- 
eenth century  were  not  in  all  respects  model  rulers  either  of 
civilized  or  uncivilized  peoples.  They  have  been  charged,  rightly, 
or  wrongly,  with  an  arbitrary  mode  of  exercising  power,  with 
cruelty,  and  with  other  reprehensible  qualities.  But  one  thing 
they  certainly  did:  they  attempted  to  bring  the  Indians  into  a 
condition  approaching  that  of  the  civihzed  races,  to  train  them  in 
agriculture  and  in  useful  arts,  and  to  gather  them  into  communi- 
ties, where  they  should  become  peaceful  and  industrious.  The 
effects  of  this  civilizing  are  repeatedly  testified  to  by  British  offi- 
cials who  came  in  contact  with  them. 

The  Dutch,  on  the  other  hand,  never  attempted  Indian  civiliza- 
tion at  all.  Their  control  over  the  Indians  was  by  means  of  gifts, 
by  the  distribution  of  ardent  spirits,  by  petty  intrigues  with  one 
tribe  or  another,  by  inciting  attacks  upon  the  Spaniards,  as  in 
1750,  by  the  direct  orders  of  the  West  India  Company,  and  lastly, 
by  the  community  of  interest  which  they  established  in  reference 
to  the  trade  in  Indian  slaves.  To  call  them  peacemakers  betrays 
a  most  extraordinary  ignorance  of  their  relations  with  the 
Indians.  Their  whole  system  of  slave-trading  was  based  on 
making  war,  for  without  war  not  one  Indian  slave  could  have 
been  procured.  The  only  way  in  which  an  Indian  entered  into 
the  status  of  slavery  was  by  hostile  capture.  Being  brought  as  a 
prisoner  of  war  to  the  Dutch,  they  took  him  clothed  with  this 
status.  They  never  reduced  any  Indians  to  slavery  themselves. 
This  would  have  involved  them  in  war,  because  war  was  a  preix- 
quisite  to  changing  a  free  man  into  a  slave;  but  they  induced  the 
Indians  to  do  it  for  them. 

Nothwithstanding  what  has  been  claimed  for  them,  the  Dutch 
authorities  were  unable,  even  when  it  was  for  their  interest,  to 
restrain  the  warlike  spirit  of  the  tribes,  or  to  maintain  peace 
between  the  tribes  themselves. 


INDIANS.  617 

111  1679  Cdmmandeur  Beekman  informed  the  Company  of  tid- 
ings of  the  approach  of  a  strong  fleet  of  Caribs  from  the  Corentin, 
with  intent  to  make  an  attack  on  Essequibo  and  Pomeroon,  in 
connection  with  the  Caribs  there.  The  Commandeur  rendered 
thanks  to  a  good  Providence  that  they  had  escaped  (V.  C.  II,  38). 

In  1680,  in  another  letter  to  the  Company,  he  told  of  the  re- 
ported poisoning  by  the  Accaways  of  one  of  his  agents,  and  that 
his  voyagers  were  in  such  fear  that  they  refused  to  go  among  the 
Accaways.  He  said  that  he  would  bethink  himself  of  "  means  for 
conciliating  that  tribe  "  (V.  C.  II,  41). 

In  1684  he  reported  to  the  Company  that  the  Caribs  had  set 
upon  Gabriel  Biscop,  who  had  come  from  Surinam  to  trade  in 
Barima,  killed  him  and  fifteen  of  his  men,  destroyed  his  bark,  and 
made  threats  that  they  would  come  with  the  French  and  lay 
waste  to  the  Dutch  plantations  and  fort  at  Essequibo.  To  guard 
against  this  he  proposed  to  erect  a  fort  on  the  island  of  New 
Walcheren  (V.  C.  II,  47). 

In  1685  he  said  that  the  Caribs  about  Barima,  Waini  and  Ama- 
kuru  alarmed  the  coast  and  slew  the  Arawaks  and  the  Christians. 

In  1750  Commandeur  Storm  reprobated  the  imprudence  of  the 
colonists  in  trading  arms  to  the  Caribs  for  slaves,  and  suggested 
that  thereby  they  put  themselves  into  the  hands  of  that  warlike 
nation  and  gave  them  weapons  which  they  might  use  for  the  de- 
struction of  the  Dutch  (V.  C.  II,  106). 

In  August,  1755,  the  Director-General  wrote  (B.  C.  II,  120): 

"  The  nation  of  the  Acuways,  which  is  very  strong  in  the  interior,  and 
some  of  whose  villages  both  in  Essequibo  and  in  Massarimi  and  Demerary 
are  situated  next  to  our  plantations,  commenced  by  attacking  the  dwellings 
of  some  free  Creoles  belonging  to  the  plantation  Oosterbeek,  and  massacring 
those  they  found  there.  Thereupon  they  spread  themselves  and  caused 
terror  everywhere.  Most  of  the  planters  living  in  Massaruni  retired  to  an 
island  with  their  slaves  and  their  most  valuable  goods,  and  none  of  them 
dared  to  stay  at  night  on  their  plantations.  A  few  days  after  that  the 
aforesaid  Acuways  attacked  the  plantation  of  a  certain  Pieter  Marchal 
(who  according  to  general  report,  is  the  chief  cause  of  this  revolt)  at  half 


^jjg  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

past  five  in  the  mornmg,killing  two  of  his  people  and  wounding  five,  most 
of  whom  have  since  died," 

He  continued  that  he  had  been  "requested  to  send  an  invita- 
tion to  the  Carib  Indians  to  take  the  field  against  the  Acuways,'' 
but  that  there  were  many  difficulties  in  the  way  of  this,  among 
which  was  that  "  they  will  come  several  hundred  strong  and  begin 
by  asking  for  bread  and  other  provisions,  of  which  we  have  none." 
He  said  that  he  "  sent  several  orders  "  to  xA.ru waks  to  come  to  him, 
as  he  wished  to  send  them  to  the  Acuways,  "  to  try  and  establish 
peace,"  but  that  "  these  Indians  have  immediately  vanished." 

In  1756  Storm  said: 

"  As  peace  has  not  yet  been  made  with  the  Accoways  of  Mazaruni 
and  Essequibo,  I  am  obliged  to  leave  the  garrison  at  the  old  fort,  and  can- 
not yet  imagine  how  this  matter  will  turn  out  "  (V.  C.  II,  121). 

That  the  colony  lived  in  continual  fear  of  the  Indians  is  shown 
by  the  Director-General's  letter  of  April  9,  1768,  in  which  he  said 
that 

"  The  desertion  of  a  serjeant  and  a  few  men  Avould  (especially  in  time 
of  peace)  be  scarcely  noticed  in  Europe,  but  here  it  is  an  entirely  differ- 
ent matter,  our  colonies  here  on  the  coast  having  on  the  one  side  restless 
neighbors  who  cannot  long  remain  still,  and  on  the  other  side  the 
Spaniards"  (V.  C.  II,  175-6). 

Now  as  to  the  maintenance  of  peace  between  the  tribes. 

In  1680  the  Commandeur  told  of  his  fruitless  efforts  to  prevent 
war  between  the  Caribs  and  the  Accaways;  that  they  refused  to 
yield  to  his  requests,  and  he  was  compelled  to  allow  the  war  to  go 
on,  notwithstanding  it  closed  the  "river  Cuyuni,  our  provision 
chamber  "(V.  C.  II,  11). 

The  Indians  threatened,  if  they  were  interfered  with,  to  de- 
part in  great  numbers  to  Barima  and  elsewhere,  and  the  meaning 
of  the  threat  was  disclosed  by  Beek man's  letter  of  January  *^. 
1683,  where  he  said  (V.  C.  II,  44),  in  speaking  of  the  obstinacy  of 
the  Indians,  who,  when  offered  wares  and  other  inducements  to 
do  anything,  "meet  you  with  the  tart  answer  that  they  can  get 
plenty  of  these  by  trade  in  Barima  and  other  places,  which  partly 


INDIANS.  619 

squares  with  the  truth,  on  account  of  the  trade  which  the  French 
from  the  islands  carry  on  there." 

In  the  following  month,  he  told  of  having  sent  a  negro  up  in 
Cuyuni,  "in  order,  if  it  be  possible,  to  make  peace  between  the 
Accoways  and  the  Caribs,  so  as  by  this  means  to  get  the  wild -hog 
hunting  there  "  (V.  C.  II,  44). 

Thus,  he  had  been  trying  for  three  years,  without  success,  to 
put  an  end  to  this  war. 

In  1686  the  chief  of  the  Caribs  in  Massaruni  sent  word  to  the 
Dutch  authorities  that  disturbances  had  broken  out  in  that  river, 
and  that  the  supply  of  dye  would  consequently  be  short.  The 
British  Case,  in  citing  this  as  an  instance  of  maintenance  of  peace 
\y  the  Dutch,  says  (p.  85): 

"  Upon  this  occasion  also  the  Commandeur  used  his  influence  to  pre- 
hnt  a  continuance  of  disorder." 

The  fact  was,  as  shown  by  the  evidence,  that  Makourawacke 

dshed  to  go  to  war,  and  the  Commandeur  sent  to  dissuade  him 

^rom  it. 

The  report  went  on  to  say  (B.  C.  I,  202): 

"  This  tlie  aforenamed  Makourawacke  would  not  comply  with,  and  this 
fe  the  chief  and  most  principal  cause  of  this  misfortune,  which  now  falls 
ipon  the  innocent." 

Here  the  evidence  cited  proves  exactly  the  contrary  of  that  for 
the  purpose  of  which  it  was  cited. 

In  1750  the  Director-General  reported  (B,  C.  II,  64)  that  one 
Jan  Stok,  a  trader  in  upper  Essequibo,  in  company  with  a  band  of 
" Orinoco  Caribs,"  had  "attacked  the  nations  our  friends  close  by 
the  Post  A  rind  a,  caused  all  the  men  to  be  killed,"  and  carried 
away  women  and  children,  besides  committing  other  enormities. 

Steps  were  ordered  looking  to  the  apprehension  of  Stok,  but 
the  Case  contains  no  further  mention  of  him.  The  Director-Gen- 
eral, however,  recommended  {id.,  p.  65)  that 

"to  obviate  all  furtlier  misfortunes  (for  a  war  with  the  natives  would  be 
the  ruin  of  the  Colony),     ,     .     .     that  your  Honours  should  be  pleased  to 


g20  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

prohibit  until  further  orders  traffic  with  the  Indians  on  the  Rivers  Esse- 
quibo,  Massaruni  and  Cuyuni." 

In  1Y46,  as  has  already  been  shown,  Commandeur  Storm 
(B.  C.  II,  46)  had  hinted  to  the  Company  that  the  Caribs  were 
ready  to  attack  the  Spanish  missions,  but  that  he  feared  that 
''such  a  step  would  certainly  be  revenged  upon  us  by  the  Span- 
iards." 

In  the  next  year  the  Company  replied  (B.  C.  II,  51),  in  their 

famous  letter  of  September  9,  1747: 

"If  in  the  meantime  you  can,  by  indirect  means  and  without  yourself 
appearing  therein,  bring  it  about  that  the  Spaniards  be  dislodged  from 
the  forts  and  buildings  which,  according  to  your  assertions,  they  have  made 
upon  the  territory  of  the  Company,  and  can  prevent  them  from  spreading 
further  in  that  quarter,  you  will  do  well  to  accomplish  this." 

This  was  almost  immediately  followed  by  the  attack  on  the 
Spanish  missions  in  1750. 

In  1757,  however,  the  Essequibo  authorities  were  even  afraid 
to  assert  themselves  in  this  covert  and  indirect  manner,  and  when 
the  Caribs  in  Cuyuni  asked  for  powder  and  shot  to  make  a  raid 
upon  the  Spanish  settlements,  the  request  was  refused,  and  the 
Director-General  was  asked  "  to  give  information  of  this  rumor" 
to  the  Commandant  of  Guayana,  "in  order  to  avert  all  sus- 
picions which  the  Spaniards  might  form  with  regard  to  this 
Colony."  The  Dutch  authorities  were  here  attempting  to  get 
credit  with  the  Spaniards  for  not  doing  that  which  a  few  years 
before  they  successfully  though  covertly  done.     (B.  C.  II,  131). 

In  1765  Storm  reported  (V.  C.  II,  160)  that  he  had  received  tid- 
ings from  the  upper  Massaruni  that  the  Caribs  were  at  war  with 
the  Accaways,  and  that  the  latter  had  massacred  all  the  women 
and  children  in  a  Caraiban  village.    His  comment  upon  it  is: 

"  Not  without  reason  did  I  fear  that  we  should  again  be  mixed  up  in 
this  as  we  were  a  few  years  ago,  especially  through  the  indiscretion  of  some 
itinerant  traders  and  avaricious  settlers,  who,  without  taking  any  heed  of 
the  consociuences,  allow  themselves  to  be  drawn  into  these  quarrels  upon 
the  slightest  inducement  of  profit,  supporting  one  or  other  of  the  parties 


INDIANS.  621 

either  with  arms  or  with  advice,  which  being  discovered  by  the  other  side 
always  leads  to  fatal  results,  and  might  be  of  great  danger  to  the  Colony 
itself." 

There  is  evidently  no  thought  here  on  the  part  of  the  Dutch 
Commandeur  of  taking  any  part  in  the  quarrel  then  in  progress. 
All  that  he  does,  apparently,  is  to  give  the  situation  a  passing 
mention.  He  not  only  does  nothing  to  put  a  stop  to  the  war,  but 
he  leaves  his  Commandant  instructions,  in  case  the  danger  of  the 
settlers  requires  it,  to  send  soldiers  up  the  river  "to  give  the  com- 
manding subaltern  strict  orders  to  act  simply  on  the  defensive, 
and  not  to  iuterfere  directly  or  indirectly  in  the  quarrels  of  the 
Indians"  (B.  C.  Ill,  120). 

This  is  another  of  the  instances  cited  by  the  British  Case  in 
support  of  its  theory  that  the  Dutch  "  maintained  peace"  between 
the  Indian  tribes. 

In  view  of  the  above,  it  is  a  wide  departure  from  the  facts  to 
assert  that  the  Dutch  as  a  practice  maintained  peace  between  the 
Indian  tribes. 

Again,  in  1768,  the  Director- General  reported  (B.  C.  Ill,  165) 

that  there  was  again  war  between  the  Accaways  and  the  Caribs  in 

Demerara  and  Berbice.     He  said: 

"  The  former  nation  is  thus  in  continual  fear  of  being  unexpectedly 
attacked  by  the  Caribs,  which  is  certain  to  happen  even  if  it  should  be 
after  the  lapse  of  a  year.  I  have  written  the  Commandeur  to  earnestly 
warn  all  the  citizens  and  his  soldiers  that  when  this  occurs  they  are  not  to 
interfere,  directly  or  indirectly,  except  to  make  peace  if  possible,  and  es- 
pecially are  they  to  take  care  not  to  provide  either  party  with  arms  or 
otherwise  to  assist  them,  since  such  action  might  bring  the  other  party 
upon  us  and  have  fatal  results." 

The  Director-General  was  not  exercising  a  very  severe  control 
over  these  tribes,  and  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  these  were  tribes 
living  within  the  boundaries  of  the  Dutch  settlements  about 
Demerara.  He  did  not  dare  to  interpose  Dutch  control  even  here, 
for  fear  of  the  consequences  to  his  own  settlement. 

A  second  class  of  acts  referred  to  in  the  British  Case  as  illus- 


322  ADVERSE   HOLDING. 

trating  the  control  of  the  Dutch  (p.  85)  over  the  Indians  is  denom- 
inated "  Protection  of  Indians." 

Two  instances  are  cited,  and  but  two,  in  which  it  was  ex- 
ercised. One  is  the  fact  that  "in  1645  the  Zeeland  Chamber 
formally  referred  to  the  Council  of  Nineteen  a  report  made  by  the 
Commandeur  of  Essequibo  on  the  subject  of  the  kidnapping  of 
Indians  in  that  neighbourhood."  The  second  is  that  "  in  1686  the 
enslaving  of  Indians  hy  Dutch  subjects  was  made  illegal,  and  only 
those  Indians  might  be  bought  as  slaves  who  were  in  slavery 
to  the  Indians  with  w^hom  the  trade  was  carried  on." 

The  first  of  these  instances  occurred  in  1645,  when  the  Dutch 
were  still  only  in  the  relation  of  military  occupants  of  Essequibo, 
during  a  war  between  them  and  Spain.  The  Commandeur  had 
reported  that  a  Dutchman  had  kidnapped  some  Indians,  and  the 
Zeeland  Chamber  referred  the  letter  to  the  Council  of  Nineteen, 
where,  for  all  that  the  evidence  in  this  case  shows,  it  may  have 
remained  until  the  Council  of  Nineteen  was  abolished. 

The  second  instance  refers  to  the  period  under  consideration. 
No  authority  is  cited  for  the  existence  of  the  law  referred  to,  nor 
is  any  such  law  mentioned  in  the  evidence.  It  is  said  to  be  an 
instance  of  protection  of  the  Indians.  In  what  does  this  protec- 
tion consist?  In  making  illegal  the  enslaving  of  Indians  by 
Dutch  subjects,  and  in  confining  purchases  of  slaves  to  those  who 
were  in  slavery  to  the  Indians  with  whom  the  trade  was  car- 
ried on. 

Having  thus  allayed  all  doubts  as  to  moral  responsibility  for 
Indian  slavery,  by  providing,  that  the  Dutch  should  not  make 
slaves,  but  that  the  Indians  should  make  slaves  and  the  Dutch 
buy  them,  the  Company  for  a  series  of  years,  and  the  Dutch  colo- 
nists during  a  considerable  part  of  the  period,  got  the  benefit  of 
the  traffic. 

As  there  is  no  evidence  of  any  such  law,  and  as  its  provisions 
are  unknown,  it  is  idle  to  speculate  upon  their  effect. 

It  is  contended  that  this  law  *' protected  from  slavery  all  tlie 


INDIANS.  623 

tribes  that  inhabited  the  territory  now  in  dispute,  as  the  Indians 
of  that  territory  did  not  enslave  one  another,  but  treated  as  slave 
nations  only  certain  tribes  further  in  the  interior;"  the  intimation 
being  that  the  Indians  of  the  disputed  territory  were  protected 
but  the  other  tribes  were  not.  This  theory  that  the  slaves  were 
not  taken  from  the  disputed  territory  is  entirely  incorrect.  It  is 
directly  contradicted  by  the  one  man  who  was  able  to  contradict 
it  authoritatively,  namely,  the  Commandeur  of  Essequibo.  In  a 
report  of  March  26,  1694,  he  states  (B.  C.  I,  212)  that  "  most  of 
the  red  slaves  come  from  the  rivers  Barima  and  Orinoco,  which 
lies  under  the  dominion  of  the  Spaniard." 

Some  of  the  instances  of  "  protection,"  however,  that  are  not 
cited  by  the  British  Case  may  properly  be  referred  to,  as  showing 
that  when  it  came  to  "protecting"  the  "protected"  Indians 
against  others,  the  Dutch  authorities  were  quite  unwilling  to  do 
anything. 

In  1748  the  Director-General  wrote  to  the  Company  (V.  C.  II, 

102),  of  the  ill-treatment  of  Indians  by  Spaniards,  and  added: 

"I  intend  to  tell  the  chiefs  of  the  Indians,  when  they  come  to  me,  that 
I  can  provide  no  redress  for  them,  and  that  they  must  take  measures  for 
their  own  security." 

This  letter  discloses  the  fact  that  the  Spaniards  were  using 
force  against  the  Indians,  and  that  the  Dutch  not  only  failed  to 
respond  to  any  duty  of  a  sovereign,  but  to  perform  that  of  an 
ally,  in  return  for  the  aid  which  they  had  received. 

The  Director-General  not  only  left  the  Indians  to  protect  them- 
selves, but  took  great  care  to  disclaim  any  responsibility  for  the 
acts  done  by  them  in  their  own  defence.  He  not  only  failed  to 
protect  his  "subjects,"  but  he  repudiated  their  acts,  when  they 
were  the  result  of  his  own  intrigues,  and  would  not  allow  that 
they  were  done  under  Dutch  authority. 

Thus,  in  October,  1754,  the  Director-General  reported  (V.  C. 
II,  114-5),  that  the  Caribs,  angered  against  the  Spanish  missions 
for  interference  with  the  slave  trade,  had  made  an  alliance  with 


g24  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

the  Panacays,  and  had  attacked  the  Spanish  mission  in  the 
Cuyuni  and  had  massacred  its  inhabitants.  He  had  received  in- 
formation that  a  Dutch  colonist  had  been  nearby  when  this  was 
done;  and  fearing  that  the  presence  of  a  Dutchman  there  would 
involve  Dutch  responsibility  for  the  Indian  attack,  he  caused  the 
man  "to  be  apprehended  and  brought  to  the  fort.  Because  such 
a  matter  would  be  of  consequence,  and  would  afford  the  Spaniards 
real  and  well-founded  reasons  for  complaint,  I  have  always  taken 
punctilious  care  therefor."  "  However,"  he  adds,  "  this  sad  acci- 
dent for  the  Spaniards  has  covered  us  on  that  side,  so  that  we 
have  nothing  to  fear  from  that  direction." 

In  connection  with  this  statement  must  be  read  th?tt  of  Storm 
which  has  just  been  cited  in  his  report  of  a  few  years  before  (B. 
C.  II,  58): 

"I  intend  to  tell  the  chiefs  of  the  Indians,  when  they  come  to  me, 
that  I  can  provide  no  redress  for  them,  and  that  they  must  take  measures 
for  their  own  security/.  Then  I  feel  assured  that  iti  a  short  time  no 
Spaniard  will  be  visible  any  more  above  in  Cuyuni.'" 

What  paltry  cunning  and  cowardice  this  was  if  the  Dutch 
Colonial  Government  occupied  the  relation  of  sovereign  to  these 
Indians!  It  failed  to  protect  them;  it  put  them  upon  their  own 
defence;  it  incited  them  to  make  attacks  against  the  Spaniards; 
and  when  they  acted,  it  apprehended  a  Dutchman  whose  presence 
in  the  neighborhood  might  have  been  construed  to  lend  counte- 
nance. And  in  the  same  breath  the  Director-General  cannot  fail 
to  congratulate  himself  that  these  acts,  the  responsibility  for 
which  he  laid  falsely  upon  the  Indians,  had  directly  and  largely 
contributed  to  the  security  of  the  Dutch  settlements. 

But  it  was  a  game  that  even  the  untutored  savage  did  not  fail 
presently  to  understand,  as  we  find  in  the  report  of  the  Director- 
General  of  September  9,  1758  (B.  C.  II,  143).  The  Spaniards  had 
made  their  expedition  down  the  Cuyuni,  attacked  the  Dutch  post 
and  carried  off  the  occupants.  There  was  a  strong  cry  now  for 
help  from  the  Caribs;  but  it  does  not  seem  to  have  been  forth- 


INDIANS.  625 

coming,  for  the  Director- General,  in  the  last  paragraph  of  his 
letter  (p.  144),  said : 

'*  As  soon  as  my  people  have  returned,  and  I  am  in  receipt  of  reliable 
information,  I  will  send  some  one  to  Orinoco  to  ask  for  the  reason  of  this 
behaviour  and  to  demand  satisfaction.  It  would  not  be  very  difficult  for 
me,  by  making  use  of  the  Caribs,  to  pay  them  back  in  their  own  coin  and 
drive  them  from  their  present  position.  But  since  the  Indians  are  unwill- 
ing to  go  without  having  some  white  men  at  their  head,  and  since  the  arms 
and  supplies  of  such  an  expedition  would  cost  a  great  deal,  I  shall  not  think 
of  it  without  having  received  express  authority." 

The  Caribs  did  not  intend  again  to  be  thrust  forward  to  make 
an  attack  upon  the  Spaniards  while  the  Dutch  withheld  them- 
selves with  a  view  of  escaping  Spanish  wrath.  They  would  not 
go  again  "without  having  some  white  men  at  their  head."  If 
Dutch  work  was  to  be  done,  it  must  be  done  as  such.  The  Dutch 
ally  must  have  a  representative  in  person  with  the  expedition. 

In  August,  1Y61  (B.  C.  II,  201),  the  Director-General  reported 
another  Spanish  force  in  Cuyuni;  that  "a  party  of  Spaniards  and 
Spanish  Indians"  had  been  "  down  to  the  lowest  fall,  where  your 
Lordships'  indigo  plantation  is  situated,  driving  all  the  Indians 
thence."  The  Indians  complained,  but  no  aid  was  sent  to  them. 
The  Director  General  continued:  "I  fear  that  bloodshed  and 
murder  will  come  of  this,  because,  if  they  come  below  the  fall  the 
inhabitants  will  surely  shoot  upon  them,  and  not  allow  them  to 
approach,  and  what  will  the  consequences  of  that  be?"  There 
was  no  help  here  for  the  Indian;  Dutch  shooting  would  not  begin 
until  the  Spaniards  had  passed  the  lowest  fall. 

Finally,  it  became  necessary  that  the  Dutch  should  give  dis- 
tinct assurance  to  the  Indians  that  they  would  discharge  their  duty 
as  ally  and  take  part  with  them.  This  was  necessary  in  order  to 
secure  the  aid  of  the  Indians  to  restore  the  post  on  the  Cuyuni; 
and  when  the  West  India  Company  were  advised  of  this,  they 
answered,  in  a  letter  of  September  19,  1765  (V.  C.  II,  162): 

"  We  are  entirely  of  your  opinion  that  it  is  of  the  greatest  necessity 
to  restore  the  post  in  Cuyuni,  and  in  consequence  we  were  very  much 


g26  ADVERSE   HOLDING. 

pleased  to  learn  that  you  had  at  last  succeeded  in  getting  Indians  to  give 
a  helping  hand  in  that  work,  on  condition  that  assurance  should  be  given 
them  of  protection  against  the  Spaniards.     This  it  was  easy  to  promise." 

Certainly  the  "  protection  "  of  the  Dutch  Commandeur  was 
paralleled  by  that  of  the  West  India  Company.  It  was  easy  to 
promise;  a  promise  that  was  never  fulfilled,  and  that  was  made 
with  no  intention  of  fulfillment.  The  protection  apparently  never 
existed  otherwise  than  as  a  basis  for  future  claims. 

In  January,  1772,  the  Director-General  reported  (B.  C.  IV,  101) 
that  the  attacks  of  the  Spaniards  had  driven  the  natives  away 
from  Moruka;  that  "  the  Spaniards  even  came  to  the  Post,  .  . 
sword  in  hand,  to  drive  away  or  carry  off  the  few  that  still  re- 
mained, and  succeeded  only  too  well  in  doing  so." 

The  Dutch  were  not  even  able  to  protect  the  Indians  at  the 
very  post,  which  it  was  contended  controlled  the  whole  of  Barima, 
from  the  assertion  of  Spanish  dominion  and  control  over  them;  in 
fact  there  was  no  measure  adopted  for  the  protection  of  the  In- 
dians until  the  order  of  the  British  Government,  after  Schom- 
burgk's  report  in  1839-40,  and  that  order  was  not  based  upon  any 
duty  of  a  protectorate  or  of  a  control  already  acquired,  but  con- 
templated a  boundary  to  be  established  on  the  basis  of  civilized  oc- 
cupation and  settlement. 

The  Spanish  authorities  took  a  different  view  of  their  obliga- 
tions; all  the  Indians  to  the  falls  of  the  Cuyuni  they  regarded  as 
subject  to  their  dominion,  by  reason  of  their  first  occupation  oi 
the  territory.  Their  rebellious  subjects  they  punished  and  held  in 
check;  their  peaceful  and  orderly  subjects  they  protected.  In 
letter  of  the  King  of  Spain  to  Don  Joseph  Solano,  June  4,  1771  (B, 
C.  IV,  86),  it  is  said: 

"The  King  has  been  advised  of  this,  as  also  of  the  great  advantages 
arising  from  the  new  settlements,  you  being  able  by  means  of  them  to  hold 
the  Dutch  in  Essequibo  within  their  legitimate  possessions,  and  to  free  the 
other  tribes  from  the  hostilities  of  the  Caribs." 

The  British  Case  having  claimed  some  httle  practice  of  pro- 
tection of  Indians,  interweaves  with  this  subject  and  introduces 


INDIANS.  627 

as  a  branch  of  it,  another  subject,  M'hich  is  called  "Jurisdiction 
over  Dutch  Settlers."  One  would  think  at  the  outset  that  juris- 
diction over  Dutch  settlers  was  not  a  ground  for  the  assertion  of 
control  over  anybody  else;  but,  according  to  the  British  Case  (p. 
85),  it  coraes  about  in  this  way: 

"  The  necessity  of  protecting  the  Indians  from  strangers  and  from  one 
another  gave  rise  to  the  exercise  of  regular  jurisdiction  by  judicial  Tri- 
bunals, which  the  Indians  themselves  became  ready  to  invoke." 

In  illustration  of  this  the  Case  cites  four  instances  where 
Dutch  colonists  were  called  to  account  for  ill-treatment  of  Indians. 

That  Dutch  settlers  occasionally  ill-treated  the  Indians,  that  the 
Indians  complained  of  it,  and  that  the  settlers  were  punished  in 
consequence,  does  not  show  a  protection  of  the  Indians  on  which 
any  political  claims  of  jurisdiction  over  Indians  can  be  founded. 
The  jurisdiction  of  the  Dutch  authorities  over  its  colonists  was  a 
personal  jurisdiction.  The  Dutch  Courts  of  course  asserted  a  right 
to  punish  the  subjects  of  their  own  nation  for  acts  against  its 
laws.  Still  more  were  such  offences  cognizable  when  they  put  in 
peril  the  safety  of  the  colony.  This  jurisdiction  is  one  familiarly 
recognized  by  the  courts.  If  the  jurisdiction  asserted  had  been  a 
territorial  jurisdiction,  it  would  of  course  have  embraced  all  those 
domiciled  or  being  within  the  district.  It  would  have  embraced 
the  French,  the  English,  and  the  Spanish  who  might  come  into 
the  territory  now  claimed  as  having  been  Dutch. 

They  all  did  come,  and  they  came  in  great  numbers;  but  a 
Dutch  jurisdiction  over  them  never  was  asserted,  nor  was  there 
ever  any  attempt  to  apprehend  them  upon  any  criminal  process. 

A  brief  examination  of  the  cases  referred  to  will  show  that  the 
claim  of  control  under  this  head  is  destitute  of  foundation. 

The  first  of  them  was  that  of  Maillard,  a  colonist  who  had 
abducted  an  Indian  girl,  upon  a  forged  order  from  the  Dutch 
Governor,  in  1748.  He  was  ordered  to  return  the  girl  to  her 
father;  and  not  respecting  the  order,  was  summoned.  We  have 
here  a  case  of  Dutch  jurisdiction   over  a  Dutch   subject  for  an 


iMg  ADVERSE   HOLDING. 

offence  agaiost  Dutch  authority.  Moreover,  the  Indian  is  de- 
scribed as  ''belonging  to  the  Company's  trading  place  in  Moruca," 
and  the  locus  of  the  offence  seems  to  have  been  the  Moruca  post 

(B.  C.  II,  56). 

In  1750,  Marchal  and  Bakker  (B.  C.  II,  64),  both  Dutch  colonists, 
were  accused  by  Indians  of  not  paying  for  services  rendered. 
They  were  reprimanded  and  ordered  to  pay  the  Indians  their  dues. 
This  was  an  ordinary  exercise  of  personal  jurisdiction. 

The  case  of  Tonsel  (B.  C.  II,  T2)  was  also  that  of  a  Dutch 
colonist,  who  was  charged  with  taking  away  the  children  of  some 
Caribs  as  pledges  for  debt,  and  with  having  stolen  a  slave  from 
another  Dutch  colonist.  Here  we  have  a  double  offence  by  a 
Dutch  colonist,  against  Indians  and  against  a  fellow-colonist. 
The  first  put  in  peril  the  Dutch  relations  with  the  Indians,  and 
both  were  offences  against  Dutch  law,  committed  by  a  Dutch 
subject. 

Mailiard  seems  to  have  been  a  confirmed  offender,  for  again,  in 
April,  1786,  it  was  reported  (B.  C.  II,  104)  that  complaints  had 
been  received  from  the  upper  Essequibo  that  he  had  killed  two 
Akawois  there.  He  was  summoned,  with  certain  negroes  as 
witnesses.  It  seems  that  Mailiard  had  adopted  an  extraordinary 
remedy  for  the  collection  of  a  debt.  He  had  placed  a  pistol  at  the 
breast  of  an  Indian,  and  said:  "  You  must  and  you  can  pay  me; 
there  are  Akawois;  kill  them;"  and  that  thereupon  Maillard's 
people  killed  two  Indians,  an  Akawois  and  an  Arawak.  Mailiard 
acknowledged  placing  the  pistol  at  the  Indian's  breast,  and  that 
the  Indians  had  been  killed  in  his  presence,  but  denied  that  he  had 
any  part  in  the  killing. 

The  conclusion  reached  at  this  point  was  {Id.  105)  "that  the 
Indians  must  frequently  tell  falsehoods  for  the  whites  who  trade  in 
the  Upj)er  Essequibo,  and  commit  many  extravagances,"  and  it  was 
•'unanimously  resolved,  in  order  to  prevent  all  these  disorders,  which 
would  l)e  very  prejudicial  to  the  Colony,  to  discontinue  this  trade 
ID  the  Upper  Essequibo,"  and  to  send  for  the  Indians  implicated, 


INDIANS.  629 

in  order  "to  examine  the  case  as  far  as  practicable,  and  then  to 
make  such  arrangements  and  fix  such  oiders  as  will  be  found  nec- 
essary." There  is  no  record  in  the  Case  of  any  further  proceed- 
ing in  this  matter. 

Here,  again,  we  have  a  Dutch  colonist  charged  with  offences 
against  the  Indians,  leading  to  disorders  prejudicial  to  the  colony. 
The  jurisdiction  exercised  was  that  over  a  Dutch  subject.  Nor  is 
it  clear  that  the  locus  of  the  crime  was  within  the  disputed  terri- 
tory. 

In  1760  Nicolas  Stedevelt  was  arraigned  (B.  C.  II,  182),  because 
he,  "  without  giving  any  notice,  had  gone  to  the  Upper  Cuyuni, 
and,  making  a  frivolous  use  of  his  Excellency's  name,  had  not 
only  ill-used  tlie  free  Caribs,  but  also  bound  and  put  them  in 
;. irons,  and  taken  a  «\'oman  away."  The  defendant  said  that  he 
'■as  prompted  to  do  so  to  recoup  himself  for  robberies  committed 
)y  Caribs  who  had  stolen  all  his  goods.  The  judgment  was  con- 
tained in  this  very  significant  resolution: 

'  That  as  Nicolas  Stedevelt  never  had  any  authority  to  act  in  such  a 
janner,  and  as  only  lately  a  Law  was  published  prohibiting  such  proceed- 
jlngs,  the  Court  hereby  condemns  Nicolas  Stedevelt  to  pay  a  fine  of  250 
^guilders,  cautioning  him  at  the  same  time  that  should  he  not  be  more 
prudent  for  the  future,  he  will  be  banished  from  the  land." 

Here  the  offence  was  against  the  Dutch  law  by  a  Dutch  citizen 
—a  law  having  for  its  object  the  repression  of  offences  by  the 
colonists  against  the  Indians.  It  appeared  by  the  testimony  that 
the  Carib  whom  he  had  put  in  irons  had  stolen  Stedevelt's  goods, 
but  this  offence  of  the  Indian  was  not  prosecuted. 

Very  similar  is  the  case  of  Pieterszen,  in  1783  (B.  C.  V,  6),  an 
inhabitant  of  Essequibo,  who  was  accused  of  killing  an  Indian, 
arrested,  tried  and  declared  innocent. 

This,  again,  is  the  case  of  a  Dutch  colonist,  and  the  place  of  the 

i» crime  seems  to  have  been  about  the  Dutch  settlements,  and  not 
Kn  the  territory  occupied  by  the  tribes. 
I      It  is  further  contended  by  the  British  Case  (p.  86)  that  a  juris- 
I 


0JQ  ADVERSE  HOLDlNa. 

diction  was  exercised  over  the  Indians  themselves.  It  is  not 
claimed  that  any  civil  jurisdiction  was  so  exercised,  and  it  is  ad- 
mitted that  such  criminal  jurisdiction  as  is  claimed  was  "  only  in 
the  case  of  the  more  important  crimes."  The  British  Case  refers 
to  exactly  three  instances,  occurring  in  a  period  of  one  hundred 
and  sixty-six  years. 

The  first  of  these  was  closely  connected  with  the  case  of  Mar- 
chal  above  mentioned,  where  certain  Akawois  had  been  murdered 
by  Caribs  in  1755.  Marchal  was  to  be  tried  for  instigating  the 
murder,  and  the  Carib  was  wanted  as  a  witness.  The  British 
Case  (p.  86)  thus  describes  what  happened: 

*'  The  Council  summoned  before  the  Court  a  Carib  Chief  from  Barinia, 
who  had  killed  certain  Akawois  in  the  Massaruni  district,  and  as  it  appeared 
that  he  had  acted  at  the  instigation  of  a  colonist,  the  latter  was  put  on  his 
trial" 

This  statement  is  quite  inaccurate.  The  Carib  was  not  "  sum- 
moned," as  the  Case  states;  nor  was  he  summoned  to  answer  for 
the  crime,  as  the  Case  would  seem  to  imply.  The  Council  sent  a 
man  "  to  invite  hither  the  Chief  of  the  Caribs  who  murdered  the 
Accuways  in  Masaruni,  to  be  present  at  the  Session  for  January 
next,  that  we  may  learn  from  the  same  who  have  been  the  causers 
and  inciters  thereof." 

There  was  no  thought  here  of  proceeding  against  the  Carib. 
There  was  no  summons.  It  was  an  invitation,  and  an  invitation 
simply  to  be  present  as  a  witness. 

In  January,  1756,  the  Owl  appeared  and  was  interrogated.  He 
said  (B.  0.  II,  123-4)  that: 

"  He  had  committed  the  murder  solely  upon  the  advice  and  persuasion 
of  the  person  Pieter  Marichal  .  .  .  who  had  told  him  that  if  he  did 
not  murder  the  Acuways,  the  letter  would  murder  him  and  his  people  in  order 
to  avenge  their  friends  killed  some  time  before,  and  when  he,  the  summoned 
one,  had  thereupon  replied  that  such  had  been  strictly  forbidden  him  by  the 
Commandeur  of  this  Colony,  the  aforesaid  Marichal  had  encouraged  him,  and 
continued  to  say  that  he  would  be  answerable  for  it  by  writing  a  letter  to 


INDIANS.  631 

his  Excellency  (who,  moreover,  could  not  judge  who  were  friends  or  ene- 
mies), that  he,  Marichal  had  sent  Oaribs  to  his  help,  and  for  which  he,  the 
Owl,  had,  after  the  slaughter  had  been  committed,  presented  Marichal  with 
one  of  the  captured  slaves  in  recognition  of  that  advice." 

Marchal  threw  himself  upon  his  dignity,  and  refused  to  be 
heard  "solely  upon  the  accusations  of  a  single  Carib,  he  appealing 
to  Christian  witnesses  who  had  heard  the  contrary  out  of  the 
mouth  of  the  aforesaid  Owl  himself."  The  judgment  was  "  to  let 
this  matter  remain  in  statu  quo.'''' 

The  Director- General  reported  that  because  of  the  untrust- 
worthiness  of  Indian  testimony  (B.  C.  II,  125)  "Marchal  was  de- 
clared innocent  of  the  charges,  although  I,  and  many  with  me, 
think  him  really  guilty." 

Here  was  a  case  of  the  murder  of  Indians,  undoubtedly  com- 
mitted by  another  Indian.  The  proceedings  were  against  a  Dutch 
colonist  for  an  offence  against  the  peace  and  safety  of  the  colony, 
and  nothing  could  more  fully  demonstrate  that  the  Dutch  were 
not  claiming  jurisdiction  over  the  Indians  than  the  fact  that 
this  Carib  Owl,  in  the  presence  of  the  Court,  admitted  the  killing, 
and  that  no  process  whatever  was  taken  against  him  for  it.  He 
was  allow^ed  to  go  free  and  left  to  answer  to  the  Indian  law  of 
blood  revenge.  The  colonist  was  also  allowed  to  go  free,  and 
nobody  was  punished  for  the  murder. 

The  second  case  referred  to  was  reported  by  the  Director-Gen- 
eral in  1765,  but  is  not  very  clearly  stated.  The  first  information 
we  have  of  this  case  (B.  C.  Ill,  121)  is  contained  in  a  report  made 
in  the  previous  August,  in  which  the  Director- General  said: 

IB  *'  I  was  obliged  to  send  the  Postholder  of  Moruka  away  from  here  very 

^Kickly,  because  the  Indians  of  Pomeroon  came  to  the  fort  to  report  that 

■^  some  canoes  filled  with  Spaniards  were  in  the  Pomeroon,  and   because  a 

'  letter  came  from  his  assistant  informing  us  that  some  murdered  Indians 

h^d  been  found  in  the  itaboes.    I  charged  him  to  go  and  inquire  into  these 

tters  as  speedily  as  possible,  and,  if  necessary,  to  immediately  send  to 

r.  Bakker,  who  would  then  send  him  assistance." 


g32  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

In  his  letter  of  December  (B.  C.  Ill,  126),  the  Director-General 

said: 

«*  The  reason  why  the  Postholdcr  of  Moruka  had  to  depart  from  here 
80  suddenly  .  .  .  was  a  rumor  that  he  had  caused  a  murder  among 
the  Indians,  the  assistant  thinking  that  certain  Spaniards  had  had  a  hand 
therein.  This  was  found  to  be  otherwise,  the  act  having  been  committed 
by  Indians  themselves.  One  of  the  murderers,  brought  here  and  im- 
prisoned, has  killed  himself  before  being  brought  to  trial,  wherein  he 
would  probably  have  been  acquitted,  and  his  corpse  has  been  hung  on  the 
gallows  for  the  satisfaction  of  the  deceased's  friends.  The  principal  one 
has  not  been  apprehended,  and  I  have  told  the  complainants  that  they  must 
themselves  apprehend  him  and  bring  him  here,  in  which  case  he  should  re- 
ceive his  well-deserved  punishment." 

This  is  rather  a  cloudy  statement  of  the  case.  It  seems  that  it 
was  supposed  that  the  Postholder  had  caused  the  murder,  and 
again  that  the  Spaniards  had  committed  it.  The  place  of  the 
crime  is  not  fixed;  but  it  must  have  been  at  or  very  near  the 
Moruca  post,  so  near  that  the  Postholder  was  suspected  of  having 
caused  the  death  of  the  Indians.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  place 
where  the  bodies  were  found.  From  the  statements,  it  seems 
probable  that  the  Indian  who  was  arrested  for  the  murder 
belonged  to  the  neighborhood  of  the  post.  He  is  reported  to  have 
been  innocent;  nevertheless,  for  the  appeasement  of  the  savages, 
the  body  of  this  innocent  man  was  hung  on  the  gallows.  The 
Indian  who  was  the  real  culprit,  and  who  had  escaped  from  the 
neighborhood  of  the  post,  was  not  pursued  by  the  Dutch.  The 
Indians  were  told  that  if  they  would  find  and  bring  him  in  the 
Dutch  would  deal  with  him.  But  nothing  further  appears  to 
have  been  done  in  the  matter.  The  case  would  really  appear  to 
be  nothing  more  than  an  unsuccessful  attempt  to  exercise  juris- 
diction in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  post,  in  a  region  that 
was  not  constructively,  but  actually,  occupied  by  the  Dutch. 

The  third  case  referred  to  is  that  of  the  Indian  Joris,  against 
whom  proceedings  were  had,  March  5,  1783  (B.  C.  V,  Y-11),  for 
killing  a  colonist  named  MuUert.    The  Indian  is  described  as 


INDIANS.  633 

"  formerly  residing  on  plantation  Engelrust,  in  this  river,  and 
formerly  at  Fort  Zeelandia."  On  the  trial  he  is  described  as  "  liv- 
ing in  the  Creek  Wakkapou."  (B.  C.  V,  9.)  In  the  Memorial 
of  the  Deputy  Fiscal  it  is  said  that  he  "  was  living  at  Supename." 
In  his  evidence  he  said  that  he  met  MuUert  "paddling  up  the 
Creek  of  Wakkapoe  "  {Id.,  p.  10),  and  that  he  shot  him  there.  He 
justified  his  act  by  saying  that  he  had  been  assaulted  and  his  goods 
taken  from  him  by  the  deceased.  He  was  tried,  found  guilty  and 
sentenced  to  a  whipping  and  hard  labor  for  life.     {Id.,  p.  9.) 

In  this  case  it  appears,  first,  that  the  locus  of  the  crime  was 
within  the  post  of  Moruka;  second,  that  it  was  a  crime  committed 
on  a  Dutch  colonist;  third,  that  the  Indian  was  an  Indian  who  had 
settled  at  a  Dutch  post;  and  it  would  appear  from  his  reference  to 
the  goods  that  he  had  gone  out  from  the  post  to  trade;  moreover, 
his  residence  had  been  at  different  points,  and  perhaps  was  then 
at  some  point  in  the  thickly  settled  part  of  the  Dutch  colony. 
He  was,  therefore,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  as  much  a  subject 
of  Dutch  law  as  the  Dutchmen  themselves,  especially  in  reference 
to  a  crime  committed  within  the  limits  of  the  colony. 

These  three  cases  are  all  that  are  mentioned  by  the  British 
Case  as  instances  of  the  exercise  of  Dutch  jurisdiction  over  In- 
dians, and  they  are  all  that  are  disclosed  by  the  evidence.  The 
fact  that  they  are  all,  occurring  in  one  hundred  and  sixty-six 
years,  that  can  be  cited  in  the  British  Case,  absolutely  contradicts 
the  suggestion  of  any  Dutch  jurisdiction,  civil  or  criminal,  for 
large  or  small  crimes,  over  the  Indians  in  the  disputed  territory. 

The  British  Case  also  refers  (pp.  90-1)  to  the  so-called  "Ap- 
pointment of  Indian  Chiefs."  Most  of  the  matters  referred  to 
under  this  head  are  too  trifling  to  require  an  answer. 

The  first  (B.  C.  I,  200)  is  a  statement  made  by  De  Jonge,  Com- 
[mandeur  of  the  second  Pomeroon  colony,  to  the  Company,  asking 
that  they  "  send  me  five  or  six  red  coats  and  breeches,  with  some 
sham  gold  and  silver  lace,  to  keep  on  friendly  terms  with  the 


^34  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

Chiefs  of  the  Indians."  Singularly  enough,  the  British  Case  refers 
to  this  as  an  evidence  of  political  control.     This  was  in  1686. 

The  next  reference  to  the  subject  is  in  1Y65,  nearly  a  century 
later.  This  is  a  statement  of  the  Director-General  (B.  C.  Ill,  126) 
that  he  has  received  "  the  ring  collars  for  the  Indian  Chiefs;  they 
are  very  pretty;  too  pretty,  in  fact,  and  too  heavy  for  Indians." 

The  third  (B.  C.  IV,  136)  relates  to  the  return  of  the  ring-col- 
lars, in  order  to  have  them  made  into  "  canes  with  silver  knobs." 

The  fourth  references  describe  the  distribution,  in  1778  (B.  C. 
IV,  187)  of  ribbons,  looking-glasses,  axes,  &c.,  to  various  chiefs 
•'as  a  token  of  friendship,"  and  that  "the  hats  and  sticks  were 
given  to  the  Chiefs  as  a  token  that  they  are  recognized  as  such  by 
the  Government."    (B.  C.  IV,  188.) 

In  the  following  year,  1779,  other  presents  were  given,  and 
"commissions  as  Captains  or  Owls  of  their  nation  w^ere  also  given 
to  Indians"  (B.  C.  IV,  207),  who  were  doubtless  ready  to  take 
anything  that  the  Dutch  saw  fit  to  give,  whether  it  was  a  ribbon, 
a  looking-glass,  a  cane,  or  piece  of  paper. 

Finally,  the  last  reference  (B.  C.  V,  26)  is  not  a  reference  to 
anything  that  was  done,  but  to  a  proposed  action  on  the  part  of 
the  Company,  in  which,  in  case  the  Indians  promised  to  give  as- 
sistance when  called  upon,  the  arrangement  should  be  accom- 
panied "  by  some  presents  to  the  Chiefs  or  Owls,  and  particularly 
a  cane  with  a  silver  knob,  bearing  the  arms  or  the  monogram  of 
the  Company,  or  something  of  that  sort,  and  a  dozen  ring  collais 
of  silver  with  the  Company's  arms  or  monogram,  and  by  rum." 

The  above  facts  are  regarded  by  the  British  Case  (p.  91),  as 
justifying  the  statement  that 

*'The  Chiefs  of  the  Indian  tribes  thus  became  formally  accredited 
officers  of  the  Dutch  Colony,  and  exercised  their  authority  with  the  saiic- 
tiou  of  the  West  India  Company." 

This  statement  hardly  seems  to  require  an  answer. 
The  same  may  be  said  of  what  the  British   Case  calls  "The 
Dutch  Subsidy,"  meaning  thereby  presents  to  the  Indians.    We 


INDIANS.  636 

are  not  going  extensively  into  a  discussion  of  this  subject.  It  is 
enough  to  refer  to  a  single  instance  mentioned  by  the  British  Case, 
where  the  chiefs  were  summoned  "in  March,  1778,  to  Fort  Zee- 
landia  and  entertained  there."  This  was  the  occasion  on  which 
the  chiefs  were  given  their  hats  and  sticks  "as  a  token  that  they 
are  recognized  as  such  by  the  Government."  The  nature  of  this 
proceeding  is  disclosed  by  a  letter  from  the  Manager  of  the  Duy- 
nenberg  Estates  (B.  C.  IV,  188),  in  which  he  said  that  orders  had 
been  given  to  the  Postholders  and  Interpreters  and  those  in  com- 
munication with  the  different  nations  that  they  should  attend  at 
the  Fortress  of  Zeelandia, 

*'  that  a  joeling  (revel),  or  festival  as  it  is  called,  might  be  given  them, 
and  presents  distributed  to  them  from  your  Honours."  "Some  of  them 
have  attended  and  received  their  revels  and  presents  with  protestations  of 
the  greatest  friendship.  .  .  .  having  regard  to  the  great  profit  which, 
in  the  interest  of  your  Honours  (as  I  hope),  the  land  stood  to  reap  there- 
from, I  did  not  dare  to  hesitate,  requesting  that  your  Honours  will  be  good 
enough  to  approve  favorably  of  my  (3onduct, — and,  at  the  same  time,  cause 
to  be  given  your  Honours'  orders  how  the  Keltum  used  by  me  for  this  fes- 

itivity    .     .     .    shall  be  accounted  for." 

The  account  for  the  ''keltum'^  is  given  in  B.  0.  VII,  182: 

"  1778.     From  plantation  Duynenburg: 
August  8.     To  the  Indians  in  their  revels,  by  order  of  the 

Director-General 176  gallons." 

With  such  a  supply  as  this  of  "  keltum"  to  facilitate  negotia- 
tions, it  would  not  be  remarkable  if  the  Indians  had  consented  to 
anything;  and  it  certainly  justified  on  their  part  "  protestations  of 
;he  greatest  friendship." 

This  act  bears  strong  indications  of  a  dehberate  and  syste- 
iiatic  purpose  to  debauch  the  Indians  by  wholesale,  and  its 
latural  result  is  to  be  found  in  steadily  diminishing  numbers  of 
he  tribesmen. 

In  1784  the  Company  devised  an  elaborate  plan  (referred  to  in 
he  British  Case,  p.  91)  for  distributing  grants  of  land  to  the  In- 
ns.   There  is  no  evidence  that  this  was  ever  carried  out.    All 


I 


030  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

that  can  be  found  is  that  the  Indians  assisted  the  colonists  in  their 
wars  with  the  revolting  slaves,  and  that  they  came  to  the  posts  to 
get  presents  whenever  they  were  distributed. 

It  is  a  singular  fact  that  the  British  Case  apparently  takes  the 
view  that  the  receiving  of  presents  is  an  indication  of  servitude. 
If  the  giving  of  a  subsidy  is  obligatory,  the  servitude  is  on  the 
other  side.  Tributary  States  or  peoples  are  those  who  pay  tribute, 
not  those  to  whom  tribute  is  paid;  and  it  was  in  view  of  this  fact 
that  Governor  Codd,  in  a  passage  already  quoted,  in  1813,  said  of 
the  Dutch-British  colonies  that  they  were  "tributaries"  to  the 
Indians. 

All  the  other  acts  which  are  referred  to  by  the  British  Case  ii 
reference  to  employment  of  Indians,  in  the  recapture  of  slaves,  t< 
the.  military  services  lendered  by  Indians,  and  to  the  industrial 
employment  of  Indians,  are  simply  reducible  to  a  mere  questioi 
of  rendering  services  for  pay.  Thus,  it  is  stated  (p.  92),  that  "i( 
was  customary  to  pay  rewards  for  each  slave  recaptured."  Ol 
course,  the  Indians,  under  these  circumstances,  were  ready  to 
undertake  the  recapture  of  fugitives. 

In  October,  1785  (B.  C.  V,  38),  the  Director-General,  speaking 
of  the  parties  he  had  sent  out  into  the  forest  to  recapture  runaway 
slaves,  said: 

"  These  Commandos  cost  certainly  much,  through  the  manifold  pres- 
ents which  wo  must  (give)  to  the  Indians,  without  which  they  will  not 
move  a  step,  and  especially  when  we  must  here  purchase  goods  therefo|r 
(88  has  happened  on  this  occasion),  but  the  entire  welfare  of  the  Colonj 
depends  thereon."  1 

There  was  here  no  levying  of  forces  for  the  sovereign,  no  as- 
sembling of  the  posse  comitatus,  but  the  hiring  of  tribesmei 
who  did  not  recognize  Dutch  sovereignty,  and  who  were  move<i 
not  by  Dutch  command,  but  by  subsidies. 

So  with  military  services.  The  Indians  rendered  such  services 
to  the  Dutch  in  putting  down  the  slave  insurrections,  and  they 
were  paid  for  their  services.    But  there  is  no  evidence  that  this 


INDIANS.  637 

military  service  was  anything  more  than  the  service  of  ordinary 
mercenaries.  There  is  nothing  to  show  that  the  Indians  were 
called  out  as  a  matter  of  right,  or  that  the  employment  of  them 
was  regarded  on  either  side  as  an  employment  of  subjects;  on  the 
contrary,  the  evidence  contradicts  any  such  proposition;  nor  does 
the  British  Case  assert  that  it  was  ever  otherwise  than  an  entirely 
voluntary  service,  which  the  Indians  regarded  as  being  in  their 
own  interest  and  for  which  they  received  an  equivalent  that  made 
it  worth  their  while. 

So  with  the  industrial  employment  of  the  Indians.  The 
British  Case  says  (p.  95): 

*'  The  Indians,  however,  acted  not  only  as  the  allies  and  soldiers  of 
the  Dutch,  but  also  as  their  sei-vants," 

and  it  instances  such  acts  as  carrying  timber,  field  labor  on  the 
plantations,  services  as  boatmen,  pilots  and  guides,  and  making 
roads  and  paths  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  post.  It  also  refers 
(p.  96)  to  their  preparing  annatto  and  other  products,  and  "in 
bringing  these  to  the  Post  to  be  forwarded  to  the  Dutch  markets." 
It  also  refers  to  their  employment  in  the  fisheries. 

That  the  Indians  were  employed  somewhat,  although  not  ex- 
tensively, by  the  Dutch  is  true;  but  that  it  has  any  significance  in 
the  matter  of  political  control  is  difficult  to  perceive.  As  to  em- 
ployment at  their  own  homes  in  preparing  annatto,  this  was 
simply  what  they  did  in  preparing  their  merchandise  for  sale  to 
the  Spanish,  Dutch,  and  other  white  traders.  The  fact  that  they 
caught  fish  and  sold  the  fish  to  the  Spaniards  and  Dutch  is  equally 
unimportant. 

The  employment  of  Indians  at  the  post  of  Moruca  is  equally 
without  significance.  None  of  these  things  have  anything  to  do 
with  political  control.  Had  the  Dutch,  as  did  the  Spaniards, 
gathered  together  twenty  thousand  Indians  in  settlements,  where 
they  remained  continuously  under  a  civilized  and  orderly  govern- 
ment, devoting  themselves  in  these  settlements  to  tilling  of  the 
soil  and  to  useful  arts,  it  might  be  said  to  be  a  step,  and  a  long 


^gg  ADVERSE  HOLDING— INDIANS. 

step,  towards  establishing  political  control  over  the  Indians  so  em- 
ployed, but  the  difference  consists  in  the  fact  that  the  political  re- 
lation which  was  established  by  the  Spaniards  with  the  Indians 
never  was  established  by  the  Dutch. 

We  think  that  we  can  affirm  with  confidence  that  up  to  the 
time  of  Lord  Palmerston's  reference  to  the  tribes  living  near  the  ; 
fort  as  "independent  Indian  tribes,"  there  had  been  no  pretence,   j 
either  on  the  part  of  the  Dutch  or  of  the  English,  that  the  limits  ' 
of  Dutch  Guiana  had  been  extended  by  reason  of  any  control, 
political  or  otherwise,  exercised  over  the  Indian  tribes.     Schom-  . 
burgk  did  not  allude  to  it.     He  was  not,  according  to  his  own  / 
statements,  in  any  way  influenced  by  it  in  fixing  the  boundaries  I 
he  proposed.     He  based  them  wholly  upon  what  he  claimed  were  | 
traces  of  actual  occupation  by  the  Dutch  and  upon  considerations  ! 
as  to  natural  boundaries.     It  remained  for  the  makers  of  affida- 1 
vits  in  British  Guiana,  after  the  adoption  of  the  Treaty,  to  dis- * 
cover  innumerable  "Indian  traditions"   as  to  the  supremacy  of 
the  Dutch  over  the  tribes.     It  is  a  curious  commentary  upon  the 
case  of  these  Indian  affidavits,  taken   before  Mr.    McTurk  and    i 
other  British  officials,  to  prove  Indian   "traditions"  before  this 
solemn  tribunal,  that  it  was  a  common  thing,  both  in  Dutch  and 
British  practice,  for  a  case  to  be  thrown  out  of  court  because 
the  Indian  testimony  on  which  it  rested  was  deemed  worthless. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 
ADVERSE  HOLDING— MISCELLANEOUS  ACTS. 

r 

I  It  has  been  shown  by  the  evidence  that,  notwithstanding  the 
I  claims  made  by  the  British  Case,  there  was  no  settlement  what- 
I  ever,  during  the  history  of  the  Dutch  colony  of  Essequibo,  west 
i^  of  the  falls  of  the  Cuyuni,  in  the  interior,  or  west  of  Moruca,  on 
I  the  coast. 

I  It  has  been  shown  also  that,  in  so  far  as  political  control  is  to 
be  considered  a  determining  factor  in  the  question  of  adverse 
holding,  no  political  control  was  exercised  by  the  Dutch  in  that 
territory,  but  that  it  was  maintained  by  the  Spanish;  that  the 
control  so  maintained  by  the  Spanish  included  numerous  acts  of 
territorial  dominion,  implying  the  exercise  of  the  highest  rights  of 
territorial  sovereignty,  and  that  it  were  exerted  not  alone  upon 
subjects,  but  upon  foreigners  in  the  territory,  and  particularly 
upon  the  Dutch;  and,  finally,  that  it  extended  over  the  whole 
period  of  Dutch  rule. 

Nor  is  it  claimed  by  the  British  Case  that  political  control,  in 
any  ordinary  meaning  of  that  term,  was  exercised  by  the  Dutch 
in  the  territory  in  dispute,  or  that  anything  resembling  the  exercise 
of  sovereignty  by  the  agency  of  political  government  was  to  be 
found  there  or  was  even  thought  of  by  the  Dutch  colonial  authori- 
ties. It  is  not  suggested  that  any  territorial  jurisdiction  was  exer- 
cised over  all  persons,  as  being  in  a  territory  subject  to  such  juris- 
diction. It  is  not  intimated  that  a  Spaniard,  a  Frenchman,  or 
even  an  inhabitant  of  Surinam,  was  ever  apprehended  in  this 
district,  or  tried  at  Essequibo  for  an  offense  committed  there.  It  is 
not  pretended  that  a  single  grant  of  land  was  made  by  the  Dutch 
either  west  of  Moruca  or  of  the  falls  of  Cuyuni.  It  is  not  pre- 
tended that  any  right  of  exclusion  was  ever  exercised  by  the  Dutch 
over  the  territory,  although  such  a  right  was  constantly  asserted 
by  the  Spaniards,  both  in  the  interior  and  the  coast. 


B 


g^  ADVERSE   HOLDING. 

Of  the  acts  of  the  Dutch  in  connection  with  the  territory  which 
the  British  Case  advances  as  in  some  sense  bearing  on  political 
control,  those  connected  with  trade  and  with  the  Indians  have 
been  discussed.  A  few  minor  facts,  referred  to  for  the  same  pur- 
pose, remain  to  be  considered.     They  are  as  follows: 

(1)  Transit  and  passports. 

(2)  Timber-cutting. 

(3)  Postholders. 

(4)  Recapture  of  fugitive  slaves. 

(5)  Creole  Dutch  language. 

(6)  Hunting  and  fishing. 
(T)  Mining. 

(1.)  Transit  and  Passports. 

The  giving  of  passports  implies  nothing  with  reference  to  ter- 
ritorial control.  Passports,  even  in  civilized  countries,  are  given 
to  subjects  leaving  the  country  to  travel  in  foreign  countries  with 
the  object  of  afifording  an  official  identification,  both  as  to  the 
individuality  and  as  to  the  nationality  of  the  holder.  They  served 
the  same  purpose  in  the  seventeenth  and  eighteen  centuries  in 
Guiana.  They  served  the  additional  purpose  of  a  permit  on  the 
part  of  the  Government  of  the  person  to  whom  they  were 
issued  to  make  a  journey  and  of  a  trading  Company  to  trade. 
In  that  early  state  of  society  and  in  the  situation  in  which 
the  colonies  found  themselves,  it  was  necessary  for  the  Co- 
lonial authorities  to  exercise  an  extensive  supervision  over 
the  movements  of  the  colonists,  and  to  know  at  all  times  where 
to  find  them.  If  they  were  not  at  their  homes  or  in  the  limits  of 
movement  of  the  colony,  it  was  necessary  for  the  Colonial  Gov- 
ernment to  know  where  they  were;  and  it  was  substantially  the 
practice  of  both  colonies  not  to  allow  individuals  to  pass  out  of  the 
colony  without  passports  from  their  own  Government.  The  pass- 
ports were  of  use  when  the  individual  came  into  the  territory  of 
the  other  State,  because  they  afforded  a  certain  indication  as  to 


MISCELLANEOUS   ACTS.  641 

who  the  bearer  was,  and  what  he  was  doing,  and  whether  his 
doings  were  regular  and  proper;  in  fact,  if  he  went  without  one 
he  ran  the  risk  of  suffering  arrest. 

Thus,  it  was  the  regular  practice  to  give  passports  to  colonists 
leaving  the  colony  by  way  either  of  the  interior  or  the  coast  terri- 
tory. These  passports  were  required  to  be  shown  at  the  Moruca 
post.  Thus,  the  Postholder  at  the  latter  place  was  instructed  in 
1767  (B.  0.  Ill,  154)  that  "  he  shall  allow  no  one  to  pass  the  post 
without  a  passport,  but  arrest  and  bring  up  any  one  coming  there 
without  one." 

Jan  la  Riviere  in  1768  had  a  passport  to  enable  him  to  pass  the 
post  at  Moruca,  though  it  expressly  forbade  him  to  settle  in 
Barima  (B.  C.  Ill,  176). 

In  like  manner,  when,  after  the  destruction  of  the  first  Cuyuni 
post,  the  Court  at  Essequibo,  in  1761,  established  a  sort  of  infor- 
mal post  (B.  C.  II,  202)  at  the  plantation  of  Crewitz,  below  the 
Cuyuni  falls,  and  therefore  at  the  colonial  frontier,  it  resolved,  in 
order  to  put  a  stop  to  contraband  trade,  especially  in  slaves,  "  to 
order  every  one  trading  or  going  up  that  river  to  provide  himself 
with  a  proper  pass,  which  must  be  shown  to  C.  Crewitz,  at  whose 
residence  they  are  to  make  a  halt." 

In  the  same  way,  passes  were  frequently  issued  to  pass  the 
post  of  Arinda,  in  the  upper  Essequibo  (B.  C.  IV,  189). 

Thus,  Storm  reported  in  1770  (V.  C.  II,  216)  that  a  young  colo- 
nist, "having  asked  for  a  permit  to  go  to  Maroco,  and  having  ob- 
tained the  same,  I  now  hear  that  he  went  farther,  and  that  he 
was  arrested  and  is  now  a  prisoner  in  Orinocque."  This  would 
imply  that  colonists  could  not  even  go  to  Moruca  without  a 
assport. 

So,  the  Governor  of  Surinam  wrote  in  1712  (V.  C.  II,  73): 

''No  whites  are  allowed  to  enter  the  Orinoco  except  with  a  pass." 

[Possibly,  however,  this   may  mean  a  pass  from   the  Spanish 
)vernment. 


049  ADVERSE   HOLDING. 

The  Dutch  found  the  use  of  passports  particularly  necessaiy 
on  account  of  the  trade  restrictions  which  they  had  thrown 
around  their  colonists;  and  if  one  of  these  left  the  colony  for  a 
time,  it  was  necessary  for  the  Colonial  authorities  to  know  that 
he  was  not  engaged  in  a  forbidden  trade,  to  the  prejudice  of  the 
Company,  and  it  was  not  unusual  to  name  in  the  passport  the 
trade  in  which  the  colonist  was  allowed  to  engage.  Thus,  Com- 
mandeur  Van  der  Heyden  reported  (B.  C.  I,  238),  January  6,  1714, 
at  which  date,  it  will  be  remembered,  the  reservation  of  trade  in 
red  slaves,  annatto  and  balsam  was  in  operation: 

*'  In  the  month  of  September  of  the  past  year  I  received  information 
through  an  Indian  that  a  certain  Christoffel  Berkenboscb  some  little  time 
before  had  asked  for  a  passport  to  trade  for  vessels  in  Orinoco.  There, 
against  the  orders  given  and  the  prohibition  made,  he  had  managed  to  get 
ten  red  slaves  and  three  casks  of  balsam  oil,  wherewith  he  intended  to 
make  his  way  to  Surinam,  but  through  severe  illness  as  he  was  returning 
had  been  compelled  to  land  near  the  Eiver  Pomeroon.  I  immediately  sent 
orders  to  the  Postholder  in  Wacquepo  to  arrest  the  said  person  and  iiis 
merchandise,  provided  they  could  be  got,  and  to  bring  them  to  the  fort, 
which  order  was  promptly  carried  out.  The  goods  being  come  into  our 
power  have  been   confiscated  to  the  profit  of  the  Noble  Company." 

In  1T19  the  Court  of  Policy  reported  the  capture  of  several 
Dutch  colonists  in  Orinoco  for  violation  of  the  trading  regulations 
of  the  Spanish  in  that  river  (B.  C.  I.,  250),  stating: 

"  For  this  reason,  it  has  been  resolved  to  grant  no  passes  to  Orinoco  be- 
fore and  ere  we  shiill  have  received  circumstantial  information  of  every- 
thing, 80  as  to  give  satisfaction  to  the  aforesaid  Governor  [of  GuayanaJ, 
and  maintain  friendship  with  our  neighbour." 

Passports,  however,  were  given  on  both  sides.  They  are  re- 
peatedly  referred  to  in  the  correspondence  as  given  by  the  Dutch,^ 
and  they  are  occasionally  referred  to  as  given  by  the  Spanish. 

Thus,  Storm  noted,  in  1764  (V.  C.  II,  155): 

"  Two  Spaniards  came  to  me  with  formal   passports  from  the  Govern^ 
to  come  here.     Essequibo  was  not  expressly  mentioned  in  them,  but 
neighbouring  Colonies  of  friends  and  allies,  which  is  equivalent." 


MISCELLANEOUS  ACTS.  643 

The  Dutch,  it  will  be  remembered,  had  some  difficulty  about 
the  wording  of  their  passports,  and  Storm  insisted  to  the  Gov- 
ernor of  Surinam,  in  1764  (V.  C.  II,  158),  that  he  should  not  name 
the  river  Barima  in  his  passes  to  Surinam  Dutchmen,  because  the 
Spanish  maintained  that  that  river  was  theirs,  "  wherein  I  believe 
they  are  right, ^^  and  because,  taking  umbrage  at  a  reference  to 
their  territory,  they  had  sent  some  of  these  passes  to  the  Court  of 
Spain. 

So  far  from  the  action  of  the  Dutch  authorities  in  reference  to 
passports  being  an  evidence  of  Dutch  territorial  claims,  it  is,  in 
this  instance,  a  clear  absence  of  such  claims.  It  is  all  the  more 
remarkable  in  view  of  the  fact  that  in  1Y34  it  was  certainly  the 
practice  of  the  Dutch  to  give  passports  to  Orinoco,  for  Com- 
mandeur  Gelskerke,  in  that  year,  stated  (V.  C.  IT,  87)  that,  as  a 
new  departure,  "until  further  orders,  no  more  passes  to  Orinoco 
will  be  issued  by  me." 

Whatever  the  practice  was,  it  has  no  significance  as  indicating 
territorial  control.  The  requirement  that  the  passports  should  be 
presented  at  the  frontier  posts  of  Moruca  and  the  Cuyuni  falls,  as 
a  permission  for  colonists  to  go  out  of  the  colony's  territory  is  in 
the  highest  degree  significant. 

The  British  Case  makes  a  statement  (p.  88)  that  the  pass  system 

was  applied  to  Indians.     This  statement  appears  to  be  incorrect, 

^at  least  in  so  far  as  the  general  granting  of  passes  to  Indians  was 

i:oncerned.     The  only  cases  which  are  referred  to  in  support  of  it 

lie  as  follows: 

(First,  in  1763  a  pass  was  given  by  the  Commandeur  in  Demerara 
►ermit  a  Carib  Owl  to  pass  from  Demerara  to  Berbice  (B.  C.  Ill, 

The  second  (B.  C.  IV,  189)   was  a  case  where  the  Director- 
Jeneral  at  Essequibo  gave  a  Carib  Owl  a  passport  for  Barima,  in 

In  the  third  case  (B.  C.  IV,  190),  the  Director-General  gave  to 
nother  Owl,  "  who  had  gone  down  the  first  fall  with  his  vessel, 


544  ADVERSE  HOLDlNC^. 

whereby  all  his  goods  were  lost,"  a  certificate  that  his  tribe  ''is 
recognized  as  our  friends  and  neighbors,  and  has  liberty  to  do 
business  in  our  Colony." 

In  the  fourth  case  (B.  C.  V,  Y3),  the  Commandeur,  in  1Y89, 
gave  a  passport  to  an  Indian  to  go  to  the  coast  of  Essequibo. 

None  of  these  cases  indicate  what  the  words  in  the  British 
Case  would  seem  to  imply— any  general  practice  of  controlling 
the  movements  of  the  Indians.  In  fact  there  was  no  such 
practice.  The  Indians  came  and  went  as  they  pleased.  Thus, 
the  instructions  of  1764  to  the  Postholder  at  Arinda  (B.  G.  Ill, 
112),  directing  the  Postholder  to  arrest  traders  of  the  colony  who 
were  not  provided  with  a  proper  pass,  stated:  "It  is  well  under- 
stood that  free  Indians  are  not  included  in  this."  In  fact,  the 
Indians,  coming  as  they  did  mainly  from  the  interior,  would 
have  no  means  of  obtaining  a  passport  until  they  reached  the 
Company's  capital  at  Fort  Zeelandia, 

That  in  a  time  of  great  disturbance  the  Commandeur  at 
Demerara  should  have  given  a  pass  to  an  Indian  chief  going  to 
Berbice  is  not  a  fact  of  any  significance,  as  he  was  travelling 
from  one  Dutch  Colony  to  another;  and,  moreover,  his  travels 
are  of  no  particular  interest  in  this  controversy,  as  the  localities 
named  were  far  to  the  eastward  of  the  territory  in  dispute. 

Nor  is  it  worthy  of  remark  as  indicating  a  general  practice 
that  the  Director-General  at  Essequibo  should  have  told  the  Post- 
holder  at  Moruca  to  let  an  Indian  pass  his  post  from  the  colony" 
into  the  Barima.    Probably  the  paper  was  given  as  a  sufficient 
credential  to  justify  the  Postholder  in  giving  the  chief  "refresh- 
ment" as  he  passed  the  post.     Unfortunately   it  did  not  have 
the  desired  effect,  as,  a  few  weeks  later  (B.   C.    IV,    190)   the 
Owl  came  back,  reporting  that,  instead  of  the  Postholder's  having 
given  him  the  rum  he  wanted,  the  Postholder  had  taken  away  al 
his  rum,  which  is  duly  entered   by  the  Director-General  in  hif 
journal  as  follows: 


MISCELLANEOUS  ACTS.  645 

"The  Owl  Awamerie  brings  me  back  again  his  passport  of  the  8th 
May  last,  and  complains  that  the  Postholder  Aru.  Dijk  has  taken  away 
from  him  on  the  way  as  he  was  going  two  bottles  of  kiltum,  and  on  his  re- 
turn a  corrial,  without  making  any  payment  therefor," 

which  shows  how  necessary  it  was,  not  that  the  Indians  should 
be  protected  by  the  Postholders,  but  that  they  should  be  pro- 
tected from  the  Postholders,  and  of  how  little  avail  the  passport 
of  the  Director-General  was  to  give  them  this  protection. 

Still  less  is  any  significance  to  be  attached  to  the  certificate 
given  by  the  Director-General  to  the  unfortunate  Indian  who  lost 
his  wares,  as  frequently  happened  in  passing  the  falls,  which 
would  enable  him  to  obtain  consideration  and  possibly  credit  in 
making  up  his  losses  with  the  colonists. 

Nor  is  it  worthy  of  remark  that  the  Commandeur  should  have 
given  a  chief  a  passport  to  go  to  the  coast  of  Essequibo. 

Mere  transit  over  territory  cannot  give  title,  even  in  the  case 
of  private  individuals;  much  less  can  it  be  the  foundation  of  a 
public  title. 

That  during  a  period  of  one  hundred  and  sixty-six  years  there 
was  in  the  aggregate  a  good  deal  of  passing  back  and  forth  over 
this  territory  by  the  inhabitants  of  the  settlements  which  adjoined 
it  to  the  east  and  west  cannot  be  doubted.  It  might  be  assumed 
to  be  a  fact,  even  without  a  word  of  evidence,  not  only  that 
Dutchmen  used  the  territory  for  purposes  of  transit,  but  that 
the  Spaniards  did  the  same.  # 

There  is  abundant  evidence  of  the  presence  of  Spaniards:  wit- 
ness the  careful  instructions  to  the  Postholder  at  Quive-Kuru, 
in  Cuyuni,  a  post  only  forty-five  miles  from  the  fall,  and,  there- 
fore, from  the  Dutch  frontier,  in  reference  to  Spaniards  who 
naight  come  that  way;  and  these  instructions  (B.  C.  II,  168)  were 
given,  it  must  be  remembered,  on  the  establishment  of  the  first 
post  and  before  the  Director-General  had  any  reason  to  suppose 
that  Spaniards  were  coming  to  attack  it. 

Still  more  conclusive  is  the  report  of  the  Court  at  Essequibo, 


54-6  ADVERSE   HOLDING. 

July  27,  1760  (B.  C.  II,  68),  from  wl)ich  it  appears  that  the  Spanish 
traders  were  to  be  found  not  only  in  the  upper  Cuyuni  and  in  the 
western  part  of  the  interior,  but  that  they  came  themselves  to 
trade  among  the  settlers  living  in  the  upper  part  of  the  Essequibo 
plantations,  and  that  this  was  a  practice  so  well  established  that 
the  Court  appointed  a  Committee  to  take  steps  to  induce  the 
Spaniards  to  come  down  the  river  to  the  Company's  stores  at  Port 
Island. 

If  such  was  the  condition  of  affairs  near  the  Essequibo  frontier 
at  the  Cuyuni  falls,  what  must  it  have  been  in  the  western  part  of 
the  territory  which  bordered  on  the  farming  and  mission  settle- 
ments of  the  Spaniards,  with  their  score  of  villages,  their  thou- 
sands of  Indians  engaged  in  agriculture,  and  their  vast  herds  of 
cattle?  Here  the  Dutch,  from  the  nature  of  things,  must  have 
been  comparative  strangers;  so  much  so  that  while  the  coming 
of  Spaniards  and  their  trading  with  the  settlement  at  Essequibo 
is  spoken  of  by  the  Committee  as  a  frequent  practice,  the  presence 
of  a  single  party  of  slave  traders  at  the  mouth  of  the  Curumo,  or 
on  the  Tocupo,  is  considered  a  matter  of  sufficient  importance  to 
be  reported  to  the  Commandant  at  Guayana  by  the  Prefect  of  the 
Missions. 

As  to  the  coast  territory,  we  know  that  it  was  used  much 
less  by  the  Dutch  than  by  the  Spaniards.  Of  trade  of  the 
Essequibo  Dutchmen  with  the  Barima  Indians  there  was  none, 
except  what  was  carried  on  at  the  frontier  post  of  Moruca. 
Trade  with  the  Orinoco  was  conducted,  in  accordance  w^ith  the 
policy  l)oth  of  the  Company  and  of  the  Director-General,  mainly 
by  Spaniards  going  to  Essequibo,  especially  in  the  latter  half  of 
the  eighteenth  century. 

Even  as  early  as  1762  (V.  C.  II,  148),  the  Court  of  Policy  couli 
say  that  '•  not  more  than  two  of  our  settlers  carry  on  trade  wi 
that  Spanish  river,"  and  that  'Hheir  boats  are  mostly  manned  bf 
Spaniards,  who  are  entrusted  with  the  business,  both  in  cattle 
and  tobacco." 


miscellaneous  acts.  647 

(2.)  Timber-cutting. 

The  claiQi  of  the  British  Case  in  reference  to  timber-cutting  is 
stated  as  follows  (pp.  83-4): 

"Closely  connected  with  trade,  but  involving  still  more  direct  exercise 
of  dominion  over  the  country,  is  the  assertion  by  the  Dutch  of  the  right  to 
control  the  cutting  of  timber. 

"  Upon  the  foundation  of  the  separate  Colony  in  the  Pomeroon  in  1686 
the  Coramandeur  asked  the  Company  for  instructions  as  to  the  terms  upon 
which  he  should  allow  timber-cutting.  He  was  ordered  to  forbid  it  to  all 
foreigners. 

"  It  is  clear  that  before  1706  the  cutting  of  timber  above  the  falls  in 
Cuyuni  had  become  a  common  occurrence,  for  in  that  year  a  party  of  run- 
away slaves  were  enabled  to  pass  the  Indians  at  the  falls  by  giving  out  as 
an  explanation  of  their  journey  that  they  were  obliged  to  go  right  up 
country  in  order  to  cut  planks  there  by  the  orders  of  the  Commandeur,  and 
that  they  intended  to  return  again  in  fourteen  days. 

"In  1734  a  general  prohibition  of  timber-cutting  in  Essequibo,  Pome- 
roon and  Demerara  was  issued  by  the  Zeeland  Chamber. 

"  In  1735  leave  was  given  to  the  Company's  Director  to  fell  timber  in 
Cuyuni  for  private  building  purposes.  Permission  to  cut  timber  in  Waini 
was  given  in  1754,  and  in  1756  a  similar  application  was  entertained. 
There  had  also,  before  this  time,  been  timber  felled  in  the  Pomeroon 
under  lease  of  the  Company.  But  in  1751  an  applicant  for  a  like  grant  in 
Pomeroon  was  informed  that  that  river  was  not  open,  but  that  permission 
might  be  obtained  for  Waini.  In  1755  leave  was  refused  for  Capoey 
Creek.  In  1756  an  application  to  cut  wood  in  Pomeroon  and  Waini  was 
made  by  one  Knott,  who  proposed  the  payment  of  1,000  guilders  annually, 
besides  the  usual  charge  on  the  vessels  in  which  it  was  exported.  The 
Director-General  and  the  Court  of  Policy,  however,  differed  on  the  expe- 
diency of  granting  the  ap})lication,  and  it  was  referred  to  the  Directors. 
In  1766  there  was  a  man  cutting  cedar-wood  in  Barima  on  account  of 
Mr.  Knott,  but  during  the  whole  time  of  office  of  Storm  van  's  Graves- 
ande,  which  lasted  till  1772,  he  opposed  the  opening  of  the  Pomeroon 
for  timber  cutting. 

"  In  1766  there  were  saw-mills  on  the  Massaruni,  to  which  land  was 
attached  by  grant  of  the  Company.  In  1773  the  Director-General  re- 
ported that  most  of  the  lands  in  the  upper  reaches  of  the  River  Essequibo 
had  been  already  annexed  as  timber-grounds  for  the  plantations  below. 
In   1?74  there  was  a  Petition  for  2,000  acres  of  land  in  Pomeroon  for 


048 


ADVFRSE   HOLDING. 


cutting  timber.     In  1793  the  Comniandcur  was  instructed  to  give  his  at- 
tention to  the  management  of  the  timber  in  the  Colony. 

*♦  In  1803,  the  Dutch,  who  had  resumed  possession  of  the  Colony  in 
1802,  proposed  to  make  regulations  for  the  protection  of  the  timber,  and 
for  making  grants  for  lumbering  in  Fomeroon,  Waini,  and  Barima." 

It  would  appear  from  the  above  statement  that  the  Dutch  ex- 
ercised the  right  of  timber-cutting  in  the  disputed  territory  to  so 
great  an  extent  as  to  make  it  one  of  the  principal  features  of  the 
British  territorial  claims.  An  examination  of  the  facts,  however, 
shows  that  no  such  alleged  practice  existed. 

It  is  freely  admitted  that  the  Dutch  authorities  exercised  the 
right  to  cut  timber  within  the  limits  of  the  Essequibo  settlement, 
just  as  they  exercised  other  territorial  rights  there.  The  territory 
where  they  exercised  such  riglits  included  the  banks  of  the  Esse- 
quibo and  the  Cuyuni  and  the  Massaruni  up  to  the  lowest  falls. 
The  names,  as  has  been  already  shown,  by  which  the  little  strips 
at  the  mouths  of  these  two  rivers  below  the  falls  'were  designated 
were  "in  Cuyuni,"  and  "  in  Massaruni."  It  cannot  be  insisted 
too  often  that  these  names,  so  confusing  in  their  sound,  were 
applied  to  grants  and  settlements  only  in  the  rivers  below  the 
falls. 

It  is  also  admitted  that  the  Government  controlled  timber 
rights  in  the  Pomeroon.  It  has  been  shown  that  the  Dutch  re- 
garded the  post  at  Moruca  as  their  frontier  in  the  coast  territory, 
just  as  they  regarded  the  Cuyuni  and  Massaruni  falls  as  their 
frontier  in  the  interior.  They  had  twice  established  a  settlement 
in  this  territory.  They  from  time  to  time  discussed  the  question 
whether  it  should  be  opened  for  a  new  settlement. 

The  only  questions,  therefore,  with  which  this  discussion  is 
concerned  are  those  relating  to  timber-cutting  west  of  the  line 
which  has  been  referred  to  as  enclosing  everything  ever  seriously 
claimed  or  attempted  to  be  controlled  by  the  Dutch,  namely,  the 
fifty-ninth  meridian. 


r 


MISCELLANEOUS   ACTS.  649 

These  simple  facts  dispose  of  nine-tenths  of  the  references  to 
timber-cutting,  which  are  set  forth  at  length  in  the  passage  above 
quoted  from  the  British  Case, 

As  to  the  first  occasion  referred  to,  where  the  Commandeur  of 
the  newly  established  settlement  of  Pomeroon,  in  1686,  asked  the 
Company  for  instructions  as  to  the  terms  upon  which  he  should 
allow  timber-cutting,  and  was  ordered  to  forbid  it  to  foreigners, 
the  fact  was,  as  shown  by  the  references  (B.  C.  I,  204  and  207), 
that,  in  leply  to  the  inquiry  of  the  Commandeur,  the  Company 
forbade  him  to  allow  any  foreign  ships  to  enter  the  river  Pom- 
eroon for  cutting  wood  or  for  any  business  transactions.  This 
was  an  ordinary  exercise  of  jurisdiction  at  a  Dutch  settlement. 

The  same  may  be  said  of  the  general  prohibition  of  timber- 
cutting  in  Essequibo,  Pomeroon  and  Demerara  issued  in  1734, 
which  was  simply  a  regulation  governing  Dutch  colonies  over 
which  the  Company  exercised  territorial  rights;  of  the  leave  given 
to  the  Company's  Director  to  fell  timber  "in  Cuyuni  "  (and  there- 
fore below  the  falls)  in  1735;  of  the  felling  of  timber  in  Pomeroon 
under  lease  of  the  Company;  of  the  refusal  of  leave  to  cut  timber 
in  Pomeroon  in  1754,  and  in  Capoey  Creek,  a  small  tributary  of 
the  Essequibo,  near  its  mouth,  in  1755;  of  the  application  to  cut 
wood  in  Pomeroon  in  1756;  of  Storm's  opposition  to  the  opening 
of  the  Pomeroon  for  timber-cutting  down  to  1772;  of  the  saw-mills 
on  the  Massaruni  (also  below  the  falls)  in  1766;  of  the  lands  in  the 
upper  reaches  of  the  river  Essequibo  which  had  been  annexed  as 
timber  grounds  for  the  plantations  below  in  1773;  of  the  petition 
for  cutting  two  thousand  acres  of  timber  in  Pomeroon  in  1774,  and 
of  the  instruction  given  to  the  Commandeur  to  give  his  attention  to 
the  management  of  timber  in  the  colony  in  1793.  This  disposes  of 
nearly  everything  on  the  subject. 

Only  one  allusion  is  made,  in  connection  with  timber-cutting, 
to  the  interior  district.  This  is  the  statement  that  in  1706  a  party 
of  runaway  slaves  (B.  C.  I,  228)  succeeded  in  deceiving  the  Indians 


050  ADVERSE   HOLDING. 

at  the  falls,  who  would  have  got  a  reward  for  bringing  them 
back,  by  the  statement  that  they  "  were  obliged  to  go  right  up 
country  in  order  to  cut  planks  there  by  order  of  the  Com- 
mandeur"  and  that  they  were  then  to  return.  The  fact  that  this 
information  deceived  the  party  of  too  credulous  Indians  is  taken 
by  the  British  Case  as  conclusive  evidence  that  "  before  1706  the 
cutting  of  timber  above  the  falls  in  Cuyuni  had  become  a  common 
occurrence."  It  is  not  pretended  that  there  is  any  direct  evidence 
of  timber-cutting  in  this  region,  or  that  there  is  the  remotest  allu- 
sion made  by  the  documents  and  correspondence  to  such  an  act: 
it  is  only  assumed  that  it  was  done  because  the  slaves  deceived  the 
Indians  by  the  story. 

The  reliance  upon  such  evidence  as  this  to  prove  the  exercise 
of  certain  territorial  rights  by  the  Dutch  as  a  foundation  for  the 
title  of  Great  Britain  to  the  territory  in  dispute  only  shows  how 
slight  is  the  real  foundation  for  this  claim  and  to  what  shreds  of 
evidence  the  British  Case  is  compelled  to  resort  to  sustain  it. 

Timber  was  not  cut  in  Cuyuni  for  a  very  good  reason.  Im 
Thurn  said  in  1880  (V.  C.  Ill,  407),  that  the  timber  extended  "  as 
far  as  the  lowest  cataracts  on  the  various  rivers.  It  is  impossible 
at  present  to  cut  timber  profitably  beyond  the  cataracts,  owing  to 
the  difficulty  of  carrying  it  to  market." 

As  to  the  statement  made  in  the  British  Case  that  '*  permis- 
sion to  cut  timber  in  Waini  was  given  in  1754,  and  in  1756  a 
similar  application  was  entertained,"  reference  may  be  made  to 
the  reports  of  the  Director-General  on  the  subject  of  these  very 
grants,  in  1758  (B.  C.  II,  143),  where  he  goes  over  the  whole  ^ 
subject.     He  said : 

"Proceeding  now  to  answer  what  you  are  pleased  to  ask  with  respect  * 
to  cutting  timber  in  the  River  Pomeroon,  I  have  the  honour  to  say  that,  i- 
in  the  aforesaid  river,    .     .     .     this  E.  Ling  has  taken  away  from  there 
two  ship-loads  of  timber,  after  which  he,  having  again  left  this  Colony  am 
having  gone  to  Barbados,  this  concession  was  withdrawn,  and  it  was  re-^ 
solved  to  grant  none  further;   but  the   making  of  timber  in  the  Kiveri 


MISCELLANEOUS   ACTS.  661 

AYaiiii  wms  left  free  to  those  who  should  apply  for  it.  Of  this  no  use 
AVAs  MADE,  NEITHER  COULD  IT  BE  MADE,  bocause  of  the  shoals  in  the 
upper  Waini." 

This  disposes  of  every  reference  in  the  British  Case  to  timber- 
cutting,  except  one,  to  the  effect  that  "  in  1766  there  was  a  man 
cutting  cedar-wood  in  Barima  on  account  of  Mr.  Knott." 

The  man  in  question,  as  shown  by  the  reference  (B.  C.  Ill,  132) 
was  one  of  that  famous  "  rag-tag-and-bobtail  party  of  our  colonists, 
staying  there  under  pretense  of  salting,  trading  with  the  Indians, 
and  felling  timber,  &c.,"  of  whom  Storm  said  (B.  C.  Ill,  131)  that 
"they  live  there  like  savages,  burning  each  other's  huts  and  put- 
ting each  other  in  chains,  and  I  fear  that  bloodshed  and  murder 
will  come  of  it."  The  man  who  was  cutting  the  cedar- wood  was 
Adams,  who  had  been  charged  with  setting  fire  to  Rosen's  hut, 
and  it  was  of  his  doings  and  those  of  his  fellows  that  Storm 
had  written  to  the  Governor  of  Orinoco,  on  the  ground  that,  in 
his  own  language,  "the  west  side  of  Barima  being  certainly 
Spanish  territory  (and  this  is  where  they  are),  I  can  use  no  violent 
measures  to  destroy  this  nest,  not  wishing  to  give  any  grounds  for 
complaint." 

The  whole  claim  in  reference  to  timber-cutting  in  the  disputed 
territory,  therefore,  comes  down  to  this:  that  there  is  no  evidence 
that  timber  grants  were  ever  issued,  or  that  timber  was  ever  cut, 
in  Cuyuni  above  the  falls  by  the  authorities  or  the  colonists  of 
Essequibo;  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  it  was  ever  cut  in  the 
coast  territory  west  of  Moruca,  but,  on  the  contrary,  there  is  the 
statement  of  the  Commandeur  that  it  never  was  cut,  except  upon 
a  single  occasion,  when  the  act  was  done  by  one  of  a  party  of 
outlaws,  against  whom  Storm  was  unwilling  to  proceed  without 
the  consent  of  the  Governor  of  Orinoco,  because  in  his  opinion, 
they  were  on  Spanish  territory. 

This  is  the  record  of  Dutch  timber-cutting  in  the  disputed  terri- 
tory during  a  period  of  16(5  years. 


^jj2  ADVERSE   HOLDING. 

(3.)   POSTHOLDEKS. 

The  statement  is  made  in  the  British  Case  (p.  86): 
*'  The  principal  officers  through  whom  the  Dutch  West  India  Company 
carried  out  their  general  control  were  the  Postholders." 

It  is  not  clear  from  this  statement  whether  the  Case  refers  to 
*'  general  control "  within  the  limits  of  the  Colony's  settlements  or 
outside  of  them. 

If  it  refers  to  control  within  the  settlements,  it  is  only  partially 
correct;  but  whether  correct  or  not,  it  is  a  question  outside  the 
present  discussion. 

If  it  refei-s  to  control  outside  the  Colony's  settlements,  it  is 
entirely  incorrect. 

In  support  of  the  statement,  the  Case  refers  to  the  lists  of  the 
Postholders  given  in  B.  C.  VII,  149-175.  It  also  refers  to  the  in- 
structions for  the  Postholders,  which  it  says  "  are  extant  for  each 
of  the  principal  posts,  Arinda,  Cuyuni  and  Moruca." 

The  statement  that  Cuyuni  was  one  of  the  principal  posts  is 
grossly  contrary  to  the  facts  and  in  the  highest  degree  misleading. 
The  records  of  the  Company,  giving  the  lists  of  employees  from  1691 
to  1786,  to  which  the  British  Case  refers,  and  which  are  printed 
in  its  Appendix,  show  that  during  that  period  two  posts  were 
continuously  maintained:  one,  that  at  Mahaicony,  a  creek  forty 
miles  to  the  eastward  of  the  Essequibo;  the  other,  that  at  Moruca 
or  Pomeroon.  No  post,  as  has  been  repeatedly  stated  in  this 
Argument,  was  established  at  Cuyuni  until  the  post  at  Quive- 
Kuru,  in  1755,  which  was  wiped  out  by  the  Spanish  in  1758,  to  be 
succeeded,  after  an  interval  of  eight  or  nine  years,  by  the  feeble 
post  lower  down,  which  was  abandoned  under  a  threat  of  Spanish 
attack,  and,  finally,  by  the  socaUed  post  (without  a  Postholder) 
kept  by  the  two  Byliei-s  on  an  island  not  far  from  the  lower  falls 
which  was  so  obscure  that  the  Spaniards  never  knew  of  its  ex- 
istence, and  which  came  to  an  end  in  1772  by  the  death  of  one 


MISCELLANEOUS  ACTS.  653 

Bylier  and  the  removal  of  the  other.    The  proposed  post  in  Cuyuni 
in  1Y03  was  never  estabhshed. 

These  facts  in  reference  to  the  post  in  Cuyuni  are  among  the 
most  patent  facts  in  the  evidence  in  this  Case.  During  the  one 
hundred  and  sixty-six  years  of  their  colonial  history  down  to  the 
transfer  of  the  colony  to  the  British,  the  post  existed  at  the  outside 
an  aggregate  period  of  eight  years;  twice  it  was  attacked  or  put 
an  end  to  by  the  actual  or  threatened  exercise  of  "political  con- 
trol "  by  Spain.  In  the  last  three  of  these  years  it  could  hardly 
be  called  a  post  at  all. 

The  bracketing  of  it  with  Arinda  and  Moruca,  as  constituting 
one  of  the  three  principal  posts,  can  only  be  accounted  for  by  a 
complete  ignoring  of  the  facts  of  the  case. 

The  principal  posts  of  the  Dutch  during  this  period,  and  in 
fact  the  only  posts,  with  the  exception  of  the  fitful  and  unsuccess- 
ful attempts  in  Cuyuni,  were:  Mahaicony  and  Moruca,  which 
lasted  during  the  whole  period;  Demerara,  until  it  became  a  sepa 
rate  Commandeurie  under  the  Director- General,  and  Arinda, 
from  the  time  of  its  first  existence,  in  1737.  Of  these,  Mahai- 
cony and  Demerara  were  on  the  east  of  the  Essequibo,  and  there- 
fore had  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  of  Spanish  boundary, 
while  Arinda  was  on  the  upper  Essequibo. 

The  object  of  the  Moruca  post  has  also  been  fully  explained, 
that  of  a  frontier  defence  and  custom-house.  As  far  as  the  evi- 
dence shows,  it  exercised  no  control  in  the  territory  west  of 
Moruca. 

In  the  northern  half  of  the  disputed  territory,  which  has  been 
designated  in  this  Argument  under  the  name  of  the  Coast  Terri- 
tory, namely,  that  west  of  Moruca,  there  was  no  post  whatever. 
In  the  southern  half  of  the  disputed  territory,  which  has  been 
designated  here  under  the  name  of  the  Interior,  there  was  no  post 
excepting  the  Cuyuni  posts. 

On  September  27,  1763,  the  Director  reported  to  the  Company 


■ 


^54  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

(B.  C.  II,  226)  the  posts  belonging  the  Company,  which  were  four 
in  number: 

(1)  Moruca,  which  "was  of  very  great  importance  when  trade 
was  still  carried  on  there  for  the  Honourable  Company;  it  then 
furnished  oreane  dye  and  boats,  and  since  the  cessation  of  the 
trade  there  is  a  great  want  of  the  latter." 

(2)  Mahaicony,  between  Demerara  and  Berbice.  "The  chief 
use  of  this  post,"  said  the  Director,  "is  really  to  keep  possession 
of  the  country,  for  without  it  Maycouni  would  already  have  been 
inhabited  some  time  from  another  side"  (doubtless  meaning 
Surinam). 

(3)  Arinda,  above  Essequibo,  "really  intended  for  the  trade  in 
red  slaves  and  dye." 

(4)  The  "still  abandoned  Post  in  Cuyuni,  abandoned  since  the 
raids  of  the  Spaniards." 

Repeated  complaints  were  made  by  the  Director  of  the  incom- 
petency of  the  Postholders.  As  a  consequence,  the  work  which 
the  Postholders  were  supposed  to  do  was  only  half  done,  and  in 
most  cases  not  done  at  all.  Storm  quoted.  May  30,  1766  (B.  C. 
Ill,  133),  one  of  the  leading  colonists  as  saying: 

"  It  is  a  crying  shame  that,  no  matter  what  pains  one  takes,  one  can  get 
no  faithful  Postholders.  If  only  those  fellows  can  get  rum,  they  never 
trouble  themselves  about  anything  else." 

A  little  later,  December  8,  1766  (B.  C.  Ill,  139),  he  said: 

"The  Postholder  of  Arinda  not  having  come  down  the  river,  in  spite  of 
my  reiterated  commands,  and  not  having  executed  any  of  my  orders,  and 
CTerything  there  being  in  confusion,  I  have  placed  one  of  the  assistants 
under  arrest  here,  and  sent  a  subaltern  officer  up  the  river  to  bring  down  the 
Postholder." 

He  added: 

**  If  we  could  only  be  so  fortunate  as  to  get  hold  of  some  competent 
Postholders,  we  should  very  soon  have  good  results.  But  this  was  impossi- 
ble up  to  the  present." 


MISCELLANEOUS  ACTS.  655 

August  10,  176Y,  the  Dii'ector-General  again  had  to  complain 
of  his  Postholders  (B.  C.  Ill,  148).  He  said  that  the  Caribs  from 
the  Upper  Essequibo  reported  that 

'•  There  is  neither  Postholder  nor  assistant  to  be  found  at  Post  Arinda,  and 
that  they  have  not  been  seen  for  fourteen  days;  that  the  house  is  half 
ruined  and  the  warehouse  broken  open  and  empty." 

In  a  letter  of  the  Director  General,  March  20,  1^67  (B.  C.  Ill, 
141),  he  said: 

"  It  is  certain  we  are  gradually  becoming  more  aware  how  extremely 
important  this  matter  [incompetent  PostholdersJ  is  to  the  service  of  the 
Honourable  Company  and  the  maintainance  of  the  Colony.  Up  to  the 
present  I  have  not  had  a  single  one  that  I  could  call  good  or  even  pass- 
able." 

In  a  letter  to  the  Company,  December  9,  1767,  the  Director 
said(V.  C.  n,  173): 

"It  is  unfortunate  that  no  competent  person  can  be  found  here  for 
places  of  such  an  importance  to  the  colony;  they  are  nearly  all  men  whose 
drinking  habits  would  make  them  unfit  for  such  a  post." 

(4.)  Recapture  of  Fugitive  Slaves, 

The  British  Case  dwells  upon  the  recapture  of  fugitive  slaves 
as  an  evidence  of  political  control,  but  only  in  respect  to  the  use 
of  the  Indians  for  this  purpose.  As  has  been  repeatedly  said,  the 
pursuit  of  runaway  slaves  was  regarded  from  the  same  point  of 
view  as  the  pursuit  of  strayed  property, — a  pursuit  which  fre- 
quently carries  one  upon  his  neighbor's  land.  The  West  India 
Company  so  regarded  them  in  1689  when  it  directed  (B.  C.  I,  211) 
the  removal  of  "  the  slaves  and  other  chattels  "  from  Poraeroon. 
There  is,  therefore,  no  significance  in  the  mere  recapture  of  slaves, 
nor  is  it  so  contended.  As  far  as  the  use  of  the  Indians  was  con- 
cerned, it  is  stated  in  the  British  Case  (p.  92)  that  "  it  was  custom- 
ary to  pay  rewards  for  each  slave  recaptured."  This  admission  at 
the  outset  put§  an  end  to  basing  any  claim  to  pohtical  control  on 
the  services  of  the  Indians  in  recapturing  runaway  slaves.  Control 
is  not  indicated  by  paying  an  Indian  for  services  rendered  any 


056  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

more  than  by  paying  a  white  man  for  services  rendered.  Judg- 
ing, however,  by  the  statements  made  by  the  Director- General  in 
the  latter  part  of  the  seventeenth  century,  there  was  great  diffi- 
culty in  obtaining  the  services  of  the  Indians  in  the  interior  dis- 
trict for  the  recapture  of  runaway  slaves  even  by  paying  for 
them. 

The  British  Case  (p.  92)  states  that,  to  prevent  escape  by  the 
interior,  "the  Dutch  to  a  great  extent  relied  on  the  Posts  in  the 
Upper  Essequibo  and  the  Cuyuni."  Considering  that  the  whole 
colony  lasted  for  one  hundred  and  sixty-six  years,  and  that  the 
post  in  Cuyuni  lasted  altogether  for  eight  years,  during  the  last 
three  of  which  the  Director  frequently  complained  that  it  was  of 
no  use  in  stopping  runaways,  this  is  a  rather  unwarranted  state- 
ment. 

In  order  to  show  a  systematic  organization  of  the  Indians  for 
this  purpose,  the  British  Case  (p.  93)  refers  to  the  post  of  Moruca, 
and  says  that 

"  Around  the  Post  was  settled  a  permanent  body  of  Caribs,  Warows 
and  Arawaks  to  the  number  of  600  or  700,  some  of  whom  could  be  always 
at  sea  patrolling  the  coast  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  the  escape  of 
runaway  slaves,  and  facilitating  their  capture.  These  Indians  were  sub- 
jected to  discipline  and  organization  of  a  simple  kind,  and  their  presence 
added  to  the  importance  of  the  Post,  which,  as  shown  elsewhere,  was  of 
great  value  as  securing  to  the  Dutch  control  of  the  water-channels  lead- 
ing to  the  Orinoco  frontier." 

The  authority  referred  to  in  proof  of  this  effective  organization 
of  the  Indians  is  a  report  of  the  Director-General  made  in  1772(B. 
C.  IV,  100),  which  makes  the  following  statement: 

**  The  numbers  of  the  runaways  increasing  daily,  this  matter  will  end 
m  tlio  total  ruin  of  a  great  many  plantations  unless  eflBcacious  remedies 
be  adopted. 

"  The  former  Postholders  in  Maroco  were  able  to  do  something  to 
arrest  the  progress  of  this  evil,  they  having  at  least  six  or  seven  hundred 
Indians  around  that  Post,  some  of  whom  they  could  always  have  out  at 
sea,  but  the  unauthorized  attacks  of  the  Spaniards  have  driven  these 
natives  away,  and  the  Spaniards  even  came  to  the  Post,  as  your  Lordships 


MISCELLANEOUS  ACTS.  657 

know,  sword  in  hand,  to  drive  away  or  carry  off  the  few  that  still  re- 
mained, and  succeeded  only  too  well  in  doing  so." 

The  only  important  fact  which  this  citation  shows  is  that  the 
Dutch  were  unable  to  maintain  their  system  of  a  settlement  of 
Indians  around  the  post  of  Moruca,  because  the  Spaniards  drove 
them  away,  and  that  as  a  result  the  number  of  runaways  was 
increasing  so  fast  that  it  would  end  in  a  total  ruin  of  many 
plantations. 

Undoubtedly  for  a  short  time  there  were  Indians  living  at  the 
post  or  in  its  neighborhood  for  this  purpose.  The  letter  cited 
gives  no  suggestion  that  the  Indians  were  '*  subjected  to  discipline 
and  organization  of  a  simple  kind,"  nor  is  any  other  document 
referred  to  which  discloses  this  fact;  so  that  the  statement  would 
seem  to  be  of  a  speculative  character.  It  may,  however,  be  based 
upon  the  evidence  annexed  to  the  British  Case,  which  has  been 
already  alluded  to,  of  the  accounts  of  the  different  plantations 
charged  with  supplying  rum  at  this  time  to  the  Postholder  of 
Moruca,  which  sufficiently  indicates  the  simple  "discipline 
and  organization  "  to  which  the  Indians  at  the  post  were  sub- 
jected. 

The  last  statement,  that  the  Post  of  Moruca  "  was  of  great 
value  as  securing  to  the  Dutch  control  of  the  water-channels  lead- 
ing to  the  Orinoco  frontier,"  is  correct  as  applied  to  Moruka  Creek, 
but  not  as  applied  to  anything  else.  The  post  undoubtedly  con- 
trolled the  Moruca  and  it  was  possible  to  go  by  way  of  the 
Moruca  to  the  Orinoco;  but  the  suggestion  that  the  post  secured 
control  of  the  water-channels  in  general  would  seem  to  be  mis- 
leading. 

(6.)  Creole  Dutch  Language. 

Much  stress  is  laid  in  the  British  Case  upon  the  fact  that  many 

of  the  Indians  in  the  disputed  territory  are  familiar  with  a  lingua 

franca  in  use  in  that  neighborhood,  which  goes  by  the  name  of 

"  Creole  Dutch,"  and  which  it  is  alleged,  as  might  be  supposed 


I 


^58  ADVERSE  HOLDING. 

from  its  name,  is  more  nearly  related  to  Dutch  than  to  any  other 
civilized  language.  This  fact  is  referred  to  as  follows  in  the  Brit- 
ish Case  (pp.  96-7): 

'*  As  a  result  of  the  constant  intercourse  between  the  Dutch  and  the 
Indians,  there  sprung  up  a  language  known  as  '  Creole  Dutch,'  which, 
when  the  British  came  into  possession  of  the  conquered  territories, 
formed  the  best  and  most  convenient  form  of  communication  between  the 
settlers  and  the  native  population." 

When  the  British  came  into  possession  of  the  conquered  ter- 
ritories, the  Indians  with  whom  they  came  in  contact  were  the 
Indians  bordering  upon  the  Dutch  Colony  of  Essequibo.  As  these 
Indians  had  bordered  on  the  Dutch  colony  of  Essequibo  for 
a  period  of  one  hundred  and  sixty-six  years  it  is  not  surprising 
that  a  mixture  of  native  and  Dutch  language  should  have 
"formed  the  best  and  most  convenient  form  of  communication 
between  the  settlers  and  the  native  population."  But  when  the 
conclusion  is  drawn  that  "  the  fact  that  the  Indians  of  a  district 
spoke  this  language  is  of  itself  strong  proof  that  the  district  in 
question  was  Dutch,"  as  it  is  asserted  in  the  British  Case,  at  page 
97,  no  impartial  mind  can  subscribe  to  it:  "  Strong  proof  "  is 
something  very  much  stronger  than  this.  It  is  no  proof  at  all  of 
the  fact  that  the  district  was  Dutch.  It  is  only  proof  that  the 
Indians  in  question,  or  their  ancestors,  had  been  in  contact  with 
the  Dutch.  The  Arawaks  of  the  upper  Cuy  uni,  who  after  the  Vene- 
zuelan Revolution  took  refuge  in  the  Moruca,  were  much  more 
thoroughly  Spanish  than  any  Indians  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Elssequibo  were  Dutch.  They  not  only  spoke  the  Spanish  lan- 
guage and  bore  Spanish  names,  but  they  had  an  education  which 
placed  them,  according  to  the  testimony  of  numerous  English 
observers,  far  above  all  the  other  Indians  in  the  disputed  terri- 
tory. 

The  Case  goes  on  to  say : 

**  It  is  therefore  worthy  of  note  that  this  language  was  spoken  by  In- 
dians of  the  Massaruni,  Essequibo,  and  Cuyuni  as   the   language  next  to 


MISCELLANEOUS  ACTS.  659 

their  own  best  understood  by  them,  and  was  used  by  them  in  their  iiitei- 
course  with  the  settlers,  and  that  Governor  Barkly,  when  he  visited  this 
part  of  the  Colony  in  1850,  found  that  this  dialect  was  still  spoken  by  the 
native  Indians  in  the  district  of  Barima,  and  that  Dutch  worda  had  also 
been  incorporated  in  the  native  Indian  language." 

That  the  Indians  of  the  Essequibo  were  able  to  talk  broken 
Dutch  may  readily  be  admitted.  That  the  Indians  about  the 
Massaruni  and  Cuyuni  below  the  falls,  and  even  to  some  extent 
above  them,  might  have  been  able  to  use  the  same  language  may 
also  be  admitted,  for  the  Dutch  slave  traders  were  unquestionably 
active  in  this  neigborhood. 

As  to  the  visit  of  Governor  Barkly  to  Barima  in  1850,  his  ob- 
servations are  best  disclosed  by  his  own  affidavit,  made  in  1897 
(B.  C.  VII,  236).  The  statement  that  Indian  chiefs  bore  the  names 
of  Jan,  Hendrik.  &c.,  may  be  matched  by  the  fact  of  such  names 
as  Pasqualle,  Jose  Rosario,  Jose  Robeiro,  and  many  others,  among 
the  Arawaks.  dementia,  one  of  the  most  famous  of  these  cap- 
tains, lived  in  precisely  the  same  locality,  on  the  Barima.  He 
was  not  an  Arawak  at  all,  but  a  Warow  (B.  C.  VII,  209).  And 
many  other  instances  might  be  found  in  the  evidence  appended  to 
the  British  Case  itself. 

Nor  is  it  in  any  way  remarkable  that,  as  stated  by  the  Gover- 
nor, "  their  conversation  and  transactions  with  Europeans  were 
largely  carried  on  in  the  Creole  Dutch  language."  The  Governor 
refrains  from  saying  in  what  other  language  they  were  carried 
on,  and  doubtless  he  had  no  one  who  spoke  Spanish  in  his 
retinue. 

Even  if  they  were  more  in  the  habit  of  using  Creole  Dutch 
than  Creole  Spanish,  which  Governor  Barkly  is  far  from  saying, 
the  fact  would  be  accounted  for  by  the  activity  of  rovers  from 
Surinam,  who  were  far  more  frequent  visitors  to  the  Barima  dis- 
trict than  the  Dutch  of  Essequibo.  Moreover,  it  is  well  known 
that  great  numbers  of  Indians  who  had  formerly  resided  near 
Essequibo  left  that  neighborhood  when  the  practice  of  distribut- 


({g0  ADVERSE   HOLDING.     . 

ing  presents  ceased  about  1838,  and  spread  all  over  the  surround- 
ing territory:  "  By  the  following  year  [1839]  no  Indians  were  to 
be  found  residing  at  the  posts."    (B.  C.  p.  105.) 

The  Governor,  who  was  alive  to  the  boundary  question,  seemed 
to  think  that  the  use  of  a  few  Dutch  words  was  of  great  signifi- 
cance. The  illustrations  which  he  gives  of  such  words  in  use 
among  the  Indians,  however,  only  show  that  they  gave  Dutch 
names  to  those  articles  the  use  of  which  had  been  taught  them  by 
the  Dutch.     He  says: 

"Even  in  their  own  dialects  the  Dutch  names  of,  for  instance,  rum, 
gunpowder,  &c.,  were  incorporated." 

He  certainly  could  not  have  happened  upon  two  m.ore  felicitous 
illustrations  of  the  methods  and  instruments  of  Dutch  influence 
over  the  Indians.  Of  this  "  influence,"  so  much  dwelt  upon  by 
the  British  Case,  the  main  factor  was  rum;  the  second  was  gun- 
powder. The  Spaniards  never  traded  in  either  of  these  com- 
modities with  the  Indians. 

If  the  Governor  had  pursued  his  investigations  further,  he 
would  probably  have  found  in  the  Indian  vocabularies  plenty  of 
Spanish  words,  but  they  would  have  related  to  religious  worship, 
agriculture  and  the  useful  arts. 

(6.)   Hunting  and  Fishing. 

There  is  veiy  little  evidence  of  hunting  in  the  disputed  ter- 
ritory. There  is  hardly  a  reference  to  it  in  a  century  and  a  half 
except  a  single  mention  of  the  wild-hog  hunting  near  the  Esse- 
quibo  River  in  the  early  days.  It  is  evident  that  no  general  prac- 
tice of  hunting  was  canied  on  by  the  Dutch  in  the  disputed 
territory  during  this  period;  and  their  salted  pork  was  bought 
from  Indians  who  did  the  hunting  and  brought  the  meat  to 
Essequibo. 

In  reference  to  the  coast  fishery,  the  Spaniards  prohibited  it  to 
the  Dutch  as  early  as  1731,  and  their  rigid  enforcement  of  the  pro- 


MISCELLANEOUS  ACTS.  661 

hibition  not  only  at  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco,  but  along  the  coast 
and  at  that  of  the  Waini,  was  one  principal  source  of  complaint 
in  the  Dutch  Remonstrance  of  1769.  It  was  only  as  to  the 
Waini,  however,  that  the  Dutch  claimed  a  territorial  right.  As  to 
the  Orinoco  fishery,  which  was  carried  on  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Point  Barima,  they  asserted  no  ownership  of  territory,  but  only 
claimed  the  enjoyment  of  the  fishery  on  the  ground  of  imme- 
morial use,  a  fact  which  the  Spaniards  disputed. 

This  claim  of  immemorial  use,  advanced  in  1769,  was  made  in 
ignorance  of  the  facts.  The  Court  of  Policy  in  1728  (B.  C.  11,  7) 
recorded  the  fact  that  the  Spaniards  had  seized  a  Surinam  vessel 
fishing  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  Orinoco.  In  1746  Essequibo 
fishing  canoes  were  seized,  and  again  in  1760. 

Even  if  the  Dutch  hunted  and  fished  during  this  whole  period, 
or  during  any  fifty  years  of  this  whole  period,  over  all  the  ter- 
ritory in  question,  it  could  not  give  them  any  rights  as  an  adverse 
holder.  These  rights  can  only  be  based  upon  acts  which  are  in- 
consistent with  ownership  in  another;  and  hunting  and  fishing  in 
uninhabited  territory  and  on  an  uninhabited  coast  must  be  pre- 
sumed to  be  done  under  the  license  of  the  owner,  there  being 
nothing  to  show  to  the  contrary.  Such  hunting  as  was  done  was 
too  inconsiderable  and  remote  from  the  Spanish  settlements  to  re- 
ceive any  attention.  As  was  well  said  by  the  Court  of  Appeals  of 
the  State  of  New  York: 

"  It  was  never  supposed  that  the  hunter  had  possession  of  the  forest 
through  which  he  roamed  in  pursuit  of  game;  and  no  more  can  a  wood- 
chopper  be  said  to  possess  the  woods  into  which  he  enters  to  cut  logs." 
Thompson  v.  Burhas,  79  New  York  Reports,  93-99. 

(7.)  Mining. 

Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  disputed  territory  contained 
gold  mines  that  were  among  the  richest  of  the  world,  these  mines 
were  practically  unknown  until  the  Spaniards  discovered  them. 
The  Dutch  authorities  suspected  the  existence  of  mines,  and  em- 


66d  ADVERSE  HOLDING— MISCELLANEOUS  ACTS. 

ployed  an  engineer  to  do  a  little  prospecting  in  the  Blue  Moun- 
tains in  1742,  who,  however,  found  nothing.  After  a  few  months 
of  unsuccessful  search  he  was  dismissed  from  the  service  of  the 
Company. 

There  is  no  other  reference  to  mines  except  to  the  so-called 
•'Crystal  Mine,"  near  the  upper  Essequibo.  Of  this  the  only  re- 
port is  that  a  Postholder  was  on  one  occasion  sent  to  examine  it, 
but  failed  to  do  so,  because  the  Indians  "strictly  forbade  him  to 
search  or  to  dig "  (B.  C.  IV,  18).  It  never  was  heard  of  after- 
wards. Notwithstanding  this  fact  and  the  uncertainty  of  its  loca- 
tion, it  is  put  down  as  the  ' '  Crystal  Mine  of  the  Dutch  "  on  Map 
2  of  the  British  Atlas. 


CHAPTER  XVn. 
EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  J8J4  TO  J850. 

It  has  been  already  stated,  in  reference  to  the  date  as  of  which 
the  boundary  is  to  be  ascertained,  that  acts  occurring  since  the 
acquisition  of  British  Guiana  by  Great  Britain  in  1814:  cannot  be 
considered  under  any  aspect  as  establishing  title  in  Great  Britain. 
It  is  nevertheless  necessary,  in  view  of  the  position  advanced  in 
the  British  Case,  to  take  a  brief  review  of  these  acts  to  show  that 
there  was  neither  British  settlement  nor  control  in  the  territory 
in  dispute  during  this  period,  and  that  consequently,  even  under 
the  construction  of  the  Treaty  for  which  the  British  Case  con- 
tends, the  events  of  this  period  do  not  affect  the  question  of 
boundary. 

In  considering  the  events  in  Guiana  subsequent  to  the  Treaty 
of  1814:,  a  division  must  be  made  at  the  year  1850,  because  of 
the  agreement  concluded  in  that  year  between  Great  Britain  and 
Venezuela  that  neither  party  would  occupy  or  encroach  upon  the 
territory  in  dispute. 

The  examination  of  the  evidence,  from  1814  to  1850,  which  is 
of  course  entirely  to  be  found  in  the  British  Case,  shows  no 
advance  from  the  position  of  1814,  in  so  far  as  the  disputed  terri- 
tory west  of  the  Moruca  and  Cuyuni  falls  is  concerned. 

The  geographical  divisions  will  be  considered  as  before  in  the 
following  order: 

(1)  Essequibo. 

(2)  Pomeroon. 

(3)  Interior. 

(4)  Coast. 

1.  Essequibo. 

Development  occurred  during  this  period  in  the  Essequibo  set- 
tlements, chiefly  on  the  coast.  The  trend  of  this  development 
was  largely  to  the  eastwards  towards  Demerara,  and  culminated 


tj^  EVENTS  IN  GOIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850. 

in  the  establishment  of  the  capital  at  Georgetown,  on  that  river. 
A  considerable  movement  was  also  noticeable  on  the  western 
bank  of  the  Essequibo. 

The  mouth  of  the  Essequibo  has  a  peculiar  conformation.  The 
line  of  the  left  bank  of  the  river  is  continued  far  out  to  sea  be- 
yond the  line  of  the  right  bank,  so  that  the  mouth  of  the  river  is, 
properly  speaking,  a  line  drawn  not  at  right  angles  to  the  river's 
course,  but  running  diagonally  across  from  the  eastern  headland 
to  a  point  where  the  shore-hne  begins  to  trend  to  the  west.  This 
shore-line  on  the  west,  where  the  bank  of  the  river  at  its  mouth 
merges  in  the  sea-coast,  was  known  as  the  Arabian  (or  Arabisi) 
Coast,  and  contains  the  mouths  of  several  creeks,  such  as 
Capoey  and  Oene. 

Under  the  influence  of  the  removal  of  the  capital,  the  relative 
positions  of  the  Demerara  and  Essequibo  settlements  became  re- 
versed, and  whereas  in  the  eighteenth  century  Demerara  had  been 
subordinate  to  Essequibo,  in  the  nineteenth  Essequibo  became  a 
mere  dependency  of  the  other.  This  effect  w^as  most  noticeable, 
as  might  be  expected,  in  the  upper  settlements. 

In  1816  the  boundaries  of  control  were  still  the  falls  of  the 
Mazaruni  and  Cuyuni,  and  they  are  mentioned  as  the  limits  up 
to  which  the  militia  were  mustered,  in  the  letter  of  Lantferman, 
Captain  of  Militia,  May  22,  1816  (B.  C.  VI,  6). 

Even  as  late  as  1831,  it  appears  from  the  testimony  of  Quarter- 
master General  Hilhouse  in  the  trial  of  Billy  WiUiam  (B.  C.  VI, 
41),  that  there  were  hardly  any  settlers  in  the  neighborhood 
of  the  junction  of  the  three  rivers,  and  that  there  were  none  be- 
yond the  falls.    He  said. 

"  There  is  a  white  settler  at  the  Falls,  another  at  the  junction,  but 
grants  have  been  made  of  the  lands  on  both  sides  up  to  the  Falls  of  the 
three  branches  of  the  Essequibo,  viz.,  the  Essequibo,  the  Mazarouy,  and 
Cayone." 

Superintendent  King,  in  his  report  of  September  20,  1841, 
(B.  C.  VI,  115),  stated; 


EVExNTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850.  665 

''  There  are  no  new  settlers  on  any  of  the  Crown  lands,  or,  indeed,  on 
any  of  the  private  lands  up  these  rivers." 

The  Crown  lands  and  private  lands  referred  to  are  those  below 
the  falls. 

This  desolation  extended  as  low  as  Fort  Island,  in  the  Esse- 
quibo.  Superintendent  Baird  remarks,  March  30,  1844  (B.  C.  VI, 
131),  that  '*  Fort  Island,  the  former  seat  of  Government,  is  now 
fast  merging  into  the  primitive  state  of  bush."  During  the  early 
part  of  the  period,  a  post  was  maintained  at  the  mouth  of  the 
]  Massaruni,  but  this  was  abolished  some  time  before  1839  (B.  C. 
VI,  87). 

In  1841,  Horan,  Keeper  of  the  Colonial  Jail,  made  investigation 
of  various  points  for  a  penal  settlement,  and  decided  on  the  site 
of  this  abandoned  post,  at  the  mouth  of  the  combined  rivers,  on 
the  northern  bank,  nearly  in  the  angle  formed  by  the  Essequibo 
and  Mazaruni,  where  there  was  a  quarry.  He  stated  that  there 
was  no  settlement  above  the  post  on  the  same  side,  except  those 
of  a  few  scattered  Indians.  The  nearest  settlement  on  the  same 
side  below  the  post  was  the  Tiger  Creek,  in  the  Essequibo,  a 
distance  of  twelve  miles.  (B.  C,  VI.,  110).  Here  the  penal 
settlement  was  established,  and  still  remains. 

2.    POMEROON. 

While  the  plantations  in  Essequibo  receded  rather  than  ad- 
vanced from  the  falls  of  Cuyuni,  they  showed  a  growth  in  the 
Pomeroon.  Twenty  years  after  the  British  acquisition  there  were 
perhaps  half  a  dozen  in  the  latter  river. 

Singleton,  the  Postholder  in  Pomeroon,  writing  in  1836, 
enumerates  (B.  C,  VI,  61)  five  plantations  above  the  Post 
on  the  Pomeroon  as  follows,  namely: 

Dumbarton  Castle,  raising  cotton,  coffee  and  plantains; 
Caledonia,  in  the  same  cultivation;  Chapel;  Phoenix  Park,  for 
plantains,  and  Land  of  Promise,  where  the  cultivation  consisted  of 


QQQ  EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850. 

coffee  and  plantains.  There  were  no  other  settlements  except  a 
boat-building  establishment,  eight  hours  from  the  Post,  and  some 
wood-cutters  above. 

The  Pomeroon  River  was  now  connected  with  the  Arabian 
Coast  at  the  extreme  point  of  the  mouth  of  the  Essequibo  by  a 
canal,  known  as  Tapakuma,  which  was  considerably  used,  after 
the  British  acquisition  of  the  Colony,  as  a  route  to  the  Pomeroon. 
In  a  return  made  in  1848  by  the  Superintendent  in  Pomeroon  (B.  C. 
VI,  168-9)  of  inhabitants  (other  than  Indians)  on  the  Pomeroon, 
its  tributaries,  and  Moruca,  extending  to  Tapakuma  Lake,  the 
total  number  of  inhabitants,  men,  women  and  children,  is  given 
as  356. 

The  Post  during  this  period  was  on  the  Pomeroon,  Moruca 
having  apparently  been  abandoned.  It  was  at  the  mouth  of  the 
river  (B.  C,  VI,  88).  Its  condition  seems  to  have  been  deplorable. 
Hilhouse,  Quartermaster-General  of  Indians,  in  November,  1823 
(B.  C.  VI,  24),  said: 

**  The  Post  of  Pomeroon,  in  every  point  of  view,  is  of  more  consequence 
than  all  the  other  Posts  together.  Under  protectors  of  Indians  it  has  been 
miserably  neglected,  and  the  only  way  to  restore  it  to  its  proper  state  of 
consequence  and  utility  is  for  his  Excellency  to  take  it  under  his  own  im- 
mediate charge  and  responsibility. 

"  For  three  years  there  has  not  been  a  cartridge  at  the  Post,  and  a  pirat- 
ical canoe  with  fifteen  or  twenty  men  could,  without  resistance,  attack  and 
lay  it  in  ruins.  The  Indians  employed  have  had  their  payment  withheld 
till  they  are  exceedingly  dissatisfied,  and  the  faith  of  government  sacrificed 
to  the  inactivity  of  individuals." 

Superintendent  King  reported  in  1839  (B.  C.  VI,  88): 

"The  Post-house  is  in  a  most  miserable  state,  scarcely  habitable.  Un- 
less something  is  forthwith  done  to  this  Post,  it  will  not  be  habitable. 
*  *  *  There  are  no  Indians  at  the  Post,  but  many  are  contiguous 
thereto,  viz.,  in  the  nearest  creeks,  Wacapouw  and  Morocco." 

And  again,  January  18,  1841  (B.  C.  VI,  101): 
**  Relative  to  the  Post-house  in  Pomeroon,  it  is  not  possible  for  the  Post- 
holder  to  reside  in  it.     There  is  no  j)ersou  there  at  present." 


EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850.  667 

And  yet  again,  in  his  report  of  September  20,  1841  (B.  C.  VI, 
114): 

"  Your  reporter  visited  the  district  of  Pomeroon  on  the  1st  July,  and 
on  arriving  at  the  Post  was  sorry  to  find  that  the  Posth older,  Mr.  McClin- 
tock,  was  labouring  under  severe  inflammation  of  the  eyes  and  cold,  which 
your  reporter  attributes  in  a  great  measure  to  the  wretched  state  of  the 
Post-house  and  Post. 

"  The  bacii  gallery  has  fallen  down,  and  the  Postholder  fell  through  the 
front  gallery  and  hurt  himself  a  good  deal. 

"Thekoker  has  been  washed  away;  in  consequence  thereof  the  whole 
place  is  under  water  every  tide,  and  by  reason  of  which  the  sills  of  the  house 
are  quite  rotten. 

'^  The  Post  has  become  so  infested  with  mosquitoes  from  the  tide 
washing  over  the  land  that  it  is  not  hardly  possible  for  any  person  to  reside 
there,  and  the  Indians  will  not,  almost  on  any  terms,  call  there." 

On  August  15,  1843,  the  Postholder,  McClintock,  again  reports 
the  deplorable  condition  of  the  post  at  Pomeroon,  which,  unless 
money  is  expended  on  it,  is  in  danger  of  tumbling  down  upon 
himself  and  family;  and  in  184Y,  after  referring  (B.  C.  VI,  166) 
to  the  ill-health  of  his  family  at  the  post,  he  says  that  **  to  pre- 
serve their  lives  he  was  compelled  to  remove  them  from  the  post 
to  a  dry  spot  up  the  Pomeroon,  which  from  the  post  is  distant 
about  53  miles." 

3.  Interior. 

So  far  as  the  British  were  concerned,  the  evidence  as  to  the 
interior  territory  west  of  the  falls  of  Cuyuni  from  1814  to  1850  is 
an  absolute  blank.  The  authorities  of  British  Guiana  seem  to  have 
had  no  interest  in  it  and  to  have  made  no  reference  to  it.  There 
is  no  record  that  anybody  ever  visited  it  or  ever  referred  to  it. 
When  Georgetown  became  the  capital,  it  was  remote  from  the 
centre  of  authority. 

Certain  establishments  were  placed  near  the  mouth  of  the 
Cuyuni  and  Mazaruni,  such  as  the  penal  settlement  and  the 
English  mission  in  1831  at  Bartica  Point  (B.  C.  VI,  46),  and 
some  interest  was  taken  in  the  upper  Essequibo;  but  that  was  all. 


00g  EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850. 

Beyond  the  falls  the  country  was  more  than  ever,  to  the  authorities 
of  British  Guiana,  an  unknown  wilderness.  There  was  no  sem- 
blance either  of  settlement  or  of  political  control.  On  the  other 
hand,  in  the  western  part  of  the  district  the  Spanish  settlements 
continued  to  flourish,  until  their  development  was  for  a  time  in- 
terrupted by  the  Venezuelan  revolution. 

In  1816  the  number  of  inhabitants  of  the  Spanish  missions  was 
officially  reported  as  21,246,  divided  among  29  settlements  which 
had  been  founded  at  various  dates  between  1724  and  1788  (B.  C. , 
VI,  6). 

During  the  next  four  years  the  interruptions  caused  by  the 
revolution  took  place,  in  which,  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  mis- 
sions remained  loyal  to  Spain,  they  became  seriously  involved  in 
the  revolutionary  war.  Many  of  the  missionary  priests  were  put 
to  death  during  this  period.  By  1820,  however,  the  Venezuelan 
Government  was  firmly  established  at  Angostura,  and  the  Con- 
gress of  Angostura,  representing  the  Government  in  the  Province 
of  Guiana,  on  January  27,  1820,  took  measures  for  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  mission  settlements  into  districts,  enumerating  30 
villages  (B.  C.  VI.,  17). 

Blanco  governed  the  settlements  for  the  whole  of  the  year 
1820;  that  when  he  took  charge  of  them  the  population  was  much 
reduced.  He  mentions  several  of  the  southern  villages,  namely 
Puedpa,  Ay  ma,  and  Divina  Pastora,  as  being  exceptions  to  the 
prevailing  tendency  (B.  C.  VI,  40). 

Blanco's  administration  put  an  end  to  the  retrograde  move- 
ment at  the  settlements  in  the  mission  valley,  and  from  that  time 
on,  they  recovered  steadily,  though  probably  not  rapidly.  The 
evidence  fortunately  gives  a  graphic  statement  of  their  condition 
in  1850,  from  an  unquestionable  authority. 

Mr.  Kenneth  Mathison,  British  Vice-Consul  at  Angostura,  in  a 
report  of  June  14,  1850,  to  Mr.  Wilson,  the  British  Minister  at 
Caracas,  referring  to  the  fact  that  gold  had  just  been  discovered 


EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850.  669 

at  Tupnquen,  makes  the  following  observations  upon  the  condi- 
tion of  that  country  as  to  settlement  (B.  C.  VI,  182): 

"  From  Upata,  at  the  distance  of  10  miles  to  the  east,  the  road  abruptly 
descends  about  400  feet  into  the  vast  valley  of  the  Missions.  The  distance 
from  Upata  to  the  Missions  or  village  of  Tupuquen  is  140  miles  over  exten- 
sive tracts  of  undulating  open  pasture-lands,  through  occasional  large 
patches  of  woods,  and  narrow  but  deep  streams.  There  are  no  regular 
roads  in  this  part  of  the  country,  and  it  requires  great  attention  on  the  part 
of  a  stranger  to  find  his  way  without  a  guide,  from  the  numerous  cattle- 
paths  that  intersect  the  whole  distance. 

"  The  direction  of  the  road  from  Las  Tablas  to  Upata  goes  south  and 
by  east,  and  from  the  latter  village  to  Tupuquen  east  -south-east.  The 
journey  from  Las  Tablas  to  Tupuquen  is  generally  performed  in  four  days 
on  horseback  in  the  dry  season,  and  on  the  whole  route  there  are  cattle 
estates  at  moderate  stages  from  each  other  that  serve  as  places  of  shelter 
and  rest  for  man  and  beast. 

****** 

"The  village  of  Tupuquen  is  composed  of  about  thirty  houses,  covered 
with  tiles;  in  its  vicinity  and  along  the  borders  of  the  whole  Yuruary  there 
are  plenty  of  materials  quite  at  hand  for  building  huts,  with  abundance  of 
cattle,  at  a  low  rate,  and  wild  game  can  be  obtained  at  all  times  and 
seasons.  Indian  corn,  pease,  rice,  yuca  for  making  cassava,  and  good 
tobacco,  can  be  procured  at  a  moderate  price  in  the  surrounding  villages." 

He  adds: 

"In  December  it  is  the  Governor's  intention  to  station  a  party  of 
soldiers  at  Tupuquen." 

4.  Coast  Territory. 

As  to  the  Coast  Territory,  during  the  period  referred  to,  the 
British  made  no  attempt  at  settlement.  Except  for  the  isolated 
,  and  unimportant  fact  that  one  Sutton  lived  for  a  few  months,  in 
1843,  on  the  shell-bank  at  the  Waini  (B.  C.  VI,  128),  no  allusion  is 
made  to  a  settler  in  that  district. 

This  isolated  act,  of  course,  has  no  bearing  upon  the  question 
of  settlement. 

The  report  of  Crichton,  Superintendent  of  Eivers  and  Creeks 
in  1839,  who    traveled  through  the  coast  territory  at  that  time, 


670  EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850. 

and  who  was  an  ardent  advocate  of  the  British  policy  of  territorial 
extension,  testified  that  there  were  no  settlements.  He  said  (B.  C. 
VI,  76): 

"  Your  reporter  had  communication  with  the  Indian  Captains  of  the 
various  nations  inhabiting  that  portion  of  the  country,  who  all  concurred 
in  declaring  that  there  were  no  persons  except  Indians  resident  in  either  of 
these  rivers  or  any  of  the  creeks  their  tributaries,  and  as  he  found  no 
deviation  in  their  statements,  he  feels  perfectly  convinced  of  their 
truth.     .     . 

"The  district  in  question  contains  a  numerous  population  of  Indians, 
viz.,  Warrows,  Accaways,  Carribesee,  and  Arrawaks,  the  former  the  most 
numerous,  and  in  the  humble  opinion  of  your  reporter,  it  would  be  good 
policy  to  secure  the  absolute  possession  of  it  to  this  Colony." 

Great  Britain  certainly  cannot  claim  that  at  the  date  of  this 
report  (1839)  she  was  in  possession,  adverse  or  otherwise,  of 
Barima. 

Nor  was  there  any  post  in  the  district. 

Mr.  Singleton,  Postholder,  writing  from  what  he  significantly 
calls  the  "  Indian  Post  of  Pomeroon,"  August  15,  1836,  states: 

"Thirdly,  there  are  no  Posts  to  the  westward  of  this  Post,  and  the 
nearest  to  the  eastward  is  the  Essequibo  Post."    (B.  C.  VI,  61). 

On  July  5,  1845,  Postholder  McClintock  writes  to  the  author- 
ities (B.  C.  VI,  138): 

"  A  Postholder  situated  in  Barima  could  not  only  furnish  the  estates 
with  plenty  of  Indian  labourers,  but  also  induce  others  from  the  Orinoco  to 
follow  their  example." 

Down  to  the  signing  of  the  Agreement  of  1850  no  attention  had 
been  paid  to  McClintock's  suggestion. 

Nor  is  there  anything  in  the  evidence  to  show  that  during  this 
period  the  coast  territory  was  used  in  the  slightest  degree  by  the 
English  colonists  for  purposes  of  trade.  They  did  not  find,  any 
more  than  the  Dutch,  that  trade  in  the  Barima  was  a  profitable 
occupation  for  their  time  or  capital.  An  extensive  trade  was 
carried  on  with  the  Spaniards  from  Orinoco,  but,  as  in  the  Dutch 
period  and  particularly  in  the  latter  half  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 


EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850.  671 

tury,  the  ti-ade  was  now  wholly  carried  on  by  the  Spaniards.  The 
Pomeroon  or  Moruca  post  preserved  its  character  of  a  frontier 
post  and  custom-house.  Numerous  illustrations  may  be  given  of 
the  fact  that  the  trade  was  entirely  in  the  hands  of  the  Spaniards 
and  that  the  use  of  the  post  was  that  of  a  frontier  custom-house. 

Quartermaster-General  Hilhouse,  who  was  an  excellent  au- 
thority, in  a  report  made  in  1834,  advocating  the  abolition  of  the 
posts,  advised  the  retention  of  that  of  Pomeroon  alone,  on  the 
gronnd  that  it  was  a  frontier  post,  and  therefore  necessary.  He 
said  (B.  C.  VI,  52): 

"  I  have  further  to  remark  that  a  Post  dejinitory  of  the  jurisdiction 
westward  is  indispensable,  and  that  the  Post  of  Pomeroon  ought  to  be  main- 
tained on  a  most  respectable  footing,  for  weighty  moral  and  political 
reasons." 

In  a  report  dated  April  20,  1839,  Superintendent  Crichton 
opposed  a  projected  removal  of  the  Pomeroon  post  to  Ara  Piakka 
Creek, 

"  because  placed  at  the  mouth  of  the  Ara  Piakka  it  could  only  be  useful 
ill  observing  those  who  pass  and  repass  by  the  Tapacooma  Lock,  whereas  in 
its  present  situation  all  travellers  from  the  Morocco,  Wyena,  and  Barima, 
whether  proceeding  through  tlie  Tapacooma  Lock  or  by  the  sea-coast,  must 
pass  it  in  either  going  or  coming,  and  the  most  efficient  site,  in  the  opinion 
of  your  reporter,  if  removal  at  present  be  deemed  necessary,  would  be  the 
mouth  of  the  Morocco  Creek"  (B.  C.  VI,  p.  76). 

The  Superintendent  opposed  the  removal  backwards  towards 
Essequibo,  because  the  post  would  lose  its  character  and  efficiency 
as  a  frontier  post,  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  vessels  coming  from 
Barima  would  not  necessarily  pass  it.  Crichton,  who  was  a 
decided  advocate  of  territorial  extension,  proposed  instead  a  site 
on  the  Moruca,  which  even  he  considered  as  being  the  extreme 
point  at  which  such  a  frontier  post  and  custom-house  should  be 
placed. 

This  character  of  the  post  as  a  custom-house  at  a  port  of  entry 
is  more  fully  shown  by  the  next  extracts. 

In  a  report  of  Sept.   30,   1841,  Mr.   King,  Superintendent  of 


072  EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850. 

Rivors  and  Creeks,  referring  to  the  fact  that  an  Orinoco  trader 
had  left  one  of  his  crew  at  Moruca,  who  had  died  of  the  small- 
pox, says  (B.  C.  VI,  114): 

"As  for  the  Oronoko  traders,  your  reporter  respectfully  would  suggest 
that  a  Custom-house  oflBcer  or  aid  waiter  ought  to  be  sent  down  to  this  dis- 
trict, as  these  traders  bring  many  articles  into  the  country  which  are  liable 
to  pay  duty,  but  which  they  dispose  of  read  ly  in  the  Pomeroon  and  Esse- 
quibo  coast.  If  such  an  oflficer  was  appointed  down  there,  such  an  occur- 
rence as  these  traders  leaving  any  of  then*  crew  behind  could  not  happen, 
as  they  would  be  obliged  to  give  security  to  take  back  their  crew,  and  ob- 
serve all  the  colonial  laws,  as  merchant-vessels  are  compelled  to  do  in 
Georgetown." 

Postholder  McClintock  called  attention,  in  1843,  to  the  import- 
ance of  the  post  being  just  at  the  entrance  of  the  Pomeroon.  He 
says  that  the  Spanish  Indians  of  Moruca,  passing  on  the  way  to 
the  Arabian  Coast  and  upper  districts  of  Pomeroon  and  "the 
Spanish  traders  from  the  Oronoco,  who  come  through  the  creeks 
and  savannas  of  the  interior,  arriving  at  the  sea  by  the  Morocco 
Creek,  cannot  pass  to  town,  or  to  the  Arabian  coast,  without 
being  also  seen."    (B.  C.  VI.,  p.  126.) 

In  his  report  of  September,  1843  (B.  C.  VI,  127-8),  Postholder 
McClintock  refers  to  the  fact  that  the  post  is  a  custom-house.  He 
says: 

**  Your  reporter  begs  to  observe  that  on  the  8th  August,  two  traders 
from  the  Oronoko  arrived  at  the  post.  Their  cargoes  consisted  of  salted 
fish,  cigars,  and  cheese.  Neither  party  being  prepared  to  pay  duty  in 
money,  your  reporter  (sooner  than  allow  them  to  pass  without  arranging) 
was  obliged  to  take  it  out  in  the  articles  they  had  with  them. 

"10th.  Another  Oronoko  trader  arrived;  cargo,  blackeye  peas  and 
cigars,  duty  paid  in  money.  1 0th,  went  to  Morocco  Creek  to  overhaul  a  sloop 
from  the  Oronoko  ;  cargo,  forty  150  lb.  bags  blackeye  peas,  ten  full-grown 
hogs,  and  ten  young  ditto.  The  owner  ot  the  vessel,  who  was  on  board,  not 
having  money  to  pay  the  duties,  produced  documents  which  proved  that  he 
was  regularly  cleared  out  at  Angostura  for  Demerara,  consequently  allowed 
him  to  pass. 

******** 

"  Your  reporter,  on  the  20th  September,  was  visited  by  Jose  Rodinze, 
Postholder  of  Corioppo  [KuriapoJ,  a  village  in  Rio  Oronoko.  The  gentleman 


EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850.  673 

in  question,  after  paying  duty  on  his  cargo,  which  consisted  of  salted  fish, 
cigars,  and  dried  meat,  proceeded  on  his  way  to  town. 


* 


* 


•  "Your  reporter,  on  the  28th  September,  received  information  of  the 
arrival  of  a  cargo  of  salted  fish  in  Morocco  from  the  Oronoko.  Proceeded 
without  delay  to  the  village  as  far  as  the  Rev.  Cullen's,  where  he  remained 
for  th«  night.  29th,  went  further  up  the  creek  to  where  the  fish  was  housed. 
Found  500  lbs.  The  duty  was  paid  in  money.  Returned  to  the  post  on 
the  30th  September." 

The  Venezuelan  trade  by  way  of  Pomeroon  was  very  active  in- 
1843.     The  quarterly  report  of  the  Postholder  says  (B.  C.  VI,  129): 

"  During  this  quarter  there  have  been  twenty-three  arrivals  from  the 
Oronoko.  These  cargoes  consisted  principally  of  salted  fish.  There  were 
also  a  few  M  cigars,  some  dried  meat,  and  three  head  of  cattle. 

'*  The  amount  of  duty,  King's  and  Colonial,  is  187  dollars,  which, 
with  a  full  statement  of  the  same,  has  been  rendered  to  the  Colonial  Re- 
ceiver-General. 

"  Your  reporter  begs  to  chose  \_sic]  that  he  experiences  great  difficulty  in 
collecting  the  dnties  from  the  Oronoko  traders,  owing  to  their  neglect  in 
not  providing  themselves  with  money  previous  to  quitting  home." 

The  Postholder  also  reports  "that  two  Indian  families  have 
quitted  Morocco  and  gone  to  reside  in  the  Oronoko "  (B.  C.  VI, 
129). 

On  September  30,  1845,  Postholder  McClintock  reports  (B.  C. 
VI,  140)  that  since  the  post-house  has  been  undergoing  repairs 
he  has  been  compelled  to  reside  a  considerable  distance  up  the 
river,  "which  prevented  the  possibility  of  attending  as  strictly  as 
was  necessary  to  the  numerous  Spanish  traders  that  came  up  from 
the  Oronoko  in  large  canoes  laden  with  fish  and  other  articles,  on 
which  there  is  duty  to  be  collected.  Formerly,  when  he  lived  at 
the  Post,  the  Oronoko  duties  amounted  in  one  year  to  a  sum  bor- 
dering on  500  dollars;  but  since  that  period,  now  upwards  of 
twelve  months,  the  collections  have  been  very  inconsiderable," 
due  apparently  to  the  fact  that  the  Postholder  lived  up  the  river. 


fi74  EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850. 

In  184Y,  Postholder  McClintock  petitioned  (B.  C.  VI,  149),  in 
reference  to  his  district  (the  Pomeroon),  saying  that: 
*'  he  made  freqnent  tours  through  the  district,  directing  his  particular 
attention  to  Morocco,  having  from  time  to  time  received  information  that 
in  all  the  month  of  June  several  Spanish  traders  were  expected,  but  unfor- 
tunately, he  could  not  remain  any  length  of  time  in  the  creek;  conse- 
quently, all  those  who  had  cigars  sold  almost  all  they  brought  up  to  the 
inhabitants  of  Morocco,  which  he  did  not  learn  until  the  parties  had  already 
reached  the  coast.  To  try  and  prevent  a  recurrence  of  this  kind  it  will  be 
requisite  that  your  reporter  erect  a  house  in  the  upper  part  of  Morocco 
Creek  beyond  the  village,  and  on  a  spot  by  which  all  cor  als,  &c.,  would  be 
comi>elled  to  pass.  Unless  a  precaution  similar  to  what  he  has  pro- 
posed be  established,  it  is  totally  out  of  his  power  to  be  responsible  or  to 
collect  duties  from  the  Oronoko  traders.  Your  reporter  considers  it  almost 
unnecessary  to  add  that  it  would  be  contrary  to  the  duties  of  his  office,  even 
admitting  he  was  made  welcome  by  the  Morocco  people,  Spaniards, 
which  is  quite  the  reverse,  to  occupy  any  part  of  their  dwellings  while  in 
the  performance  of  his  duties  as  Commissary.  Consequently,  to  enable  him 
to  act  independently,  which  he  feels  himself,  by  oath  as  well  as  principle, 
bound  to  do,  there  is  but  one  step  to  be  adopted,  and  that  is,  to  erect  a 
building  in  the  upper  part  of  Morocco  Creek,  on  a  site  such  as  he  would 
select." 

From  the  above  letter  it  appears  that  there  was  a  considerable 
settlement  of  **  Spaniards  "  about  the  Moruca.  The  language  does 
not  seem  to  refer  to  the  Spanish  Indians,  a  party  of  whom,  as  is 
well  known,  went  to  the  neighborhood  of  the  Pomeroon  at  the  time 
of  the  Venezuelan  Revolution  and  during  the  next  half  century 
or  more  dwelt  in  the  neighborhood  of  Moruca  and  sometimes  on 
the  Orinoco,  going  back  and  forth  as  the  fancy  suited  them. 
Whether  McClintock  refers  to  whites  or  Indians  he  is  obviously 
referring  to  a  population  not  acknowledging  themselves  to  be 
British  subjects.  In  his  view  and  in  their  own,  they  are  evi- 
dently "Spaniards,"  a  phrase  which  can  only  be  taken  to  mean 
Venezuelan  subjects. 

McClintock's  recommendation  as  to  the  building  of  a  house  in 
Moruca  was  not  carried  out,  at  least  not  until  long  after  the 
Agreement  of  1860  went  into  effect. 


EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  IS  14  TO  1850.  675 

In  a  letter  of  April  9,  1849,  to  the  Secretary,  Superintendent 
McClintock  dwells  on  the  importance  of  Pomeroon  and  Monica  as 
points  for  a  custom-house.     He  says  (B.  C.  VI,  174): 

"I  have  therefore  to  state  that  all  Spaniards  who  trade  to  the 
Colony  in  coreals,  canoes,  and  sometimes  small  sloop  boats,  are  obliged, 
from  the  peculiar  build  of  the  crafts,  to  pass  through  Morocco  Creek  to 
reach  the  sea,  the  mouth  of  which  is  distant  from  the  post-house  about  3-J 
miles,  and  from  whom,  according  to  a  special  order  from  Sir  Henry  Light, 
I  am  compelled  to  receive  duties;  and,  for  that  purpose,  as  also  to  prevent 
smuggling,  said  order  directs  me  to  reside  at  the  mouth  of  Pomeroon 
Kiver." 

He  adds: 

"  When  once  the  present  protection  be  removed  or  withdrawn,  smug- 
gling in  rum,  sugar,  coffee,  tobacco  in  roll,  oil,  &c.,  will  be  carried  on  by 
the  Spaniards  of  the  Oronoko." 

These  extracts  show  not  only  the  character  of  the  post  as  a 
custom-house,  hut  incidentally  they  show  the  great  extent  and 
variety  of  the  Venezuelan  trade  carried  on  entirely  by  the  Venez- 
uelans and  its  importance  to  the  Colony  of  Essequibo.  The  state- 
ment given  by  McClintock  is  a  picture  of  a  constant  succession 
of  Spanish  boats  coming  through  the  Barima  from  the  Orinoco  to 
Moruca.  There  is  not  a  suggestion  that  any  of  these  innumerable 
cargoes  were  brought  in  by  English  traders;  there  is  not  an  inti- 
mation that  an  Englishman  ever  engaged  in  such  trade.  No  no- 
tice is  taken  of  this  trade  at  all,  and  no  supervision  of  it  is  at- 
tempted until  it  reaches  what  the  British  officials  obviously  regard 
as  their  frontier  at  Moruca.  No  supervision  is  ever  attempted  or 
even  dreamt  of  in  the  Barima,  where  this  constant  stream  of  navi- 
gation, day  in  and  day  out,  year  after  year,  is  to  be  found.  Viewed 
in  the  light  in  which  the  British  Case  regards  trade  as  leading  to 
political  control,  the  Venezuelan  control  of  the  coast  territory  at 
this  time  was  complete. 

Superintendent  McClintock,  December  31,  1849,  again  speaks 
of  the  importance  of  the  custom-house,  and  says  (B.  C.  VL,  177): 
"for  several   months  past  many  of  the  Spaniards  who  at  one  time  were 


(576  EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850. 

in  the  habit  of  sending  up  cargoes  of  fish,  cigars,  and  tobacco,  in  roll,  from 
the  Oronoko,  through  the  inside  passage,     .     .      .     have  lately  preferred 
the  cattle-vessels,  which  go  direct  to  town," 
but  since  the  publication  of  a  recent  ordinance, 

"  several  Spaniards  have  it  in  contemplation  to  renew  the  former  practice  of 
coming  np  through  the  creeks." 

Superintendent  McClintock,  December  31,  1855  (B.  C.  VI.,  199) 
again  calls  attention  to  the  importance  of  Moruca  and  Pomeroon 
as  a  custom-house.    He  says: 

"That  during  this  and  the  preceding  quarter  several  cargoes  of 
salted  fish,  dried  meat,  &c.  came  from  the  Orinoko,  upon  which  the 
import  duty  should  have  been  paid,  but  owing  to  the  distance  of 
reporter's  residence  from  Moruca  (upwards  of  50  miles),  the  traders — 
all  of  whom  coming  prepared  to  reach  the  coast  by  sea,  declined  the 
journey,  consequently,  the  duties  which  should  have  been  collected  for 
the  Colony  were  utterly  lost  to  it." 

Here  we  have  a  curious  illustration  of  the  situation  at  Pome- 
roon. The  English  were  maintaining  their  post  on  that  river. 
The  MoiTica,  however,  afforded  the  Venezuelan  vessels  engaged  in 
trade  an  outlet  to  the  sea  without  touching  the  Pomeroon  at 
all,  and  they  of  course  went  that  way.  As  the  post  at  the 
mouth  of  the  Pomeroon  was  uninhabited  and  the  Fostholder 
was  living  fifty  miles  up  the  river,  they  naturally  did  not  take 
the  trouble  to  perform  this  additional  journey  of  one  hundred 
miles  for  the  purpose  of  seeking  out  the  Postholder  and  pay- 
ing the  duties,  in  consequence  of  which  the  duties  were  lost. 
Instead  of  an  assertion  of  British  control  over  Barima,  it 
would  appear  that  this  was  an  abandonment  of  British  con- 
trol on  the  Moruca. 

In  his  report  for  the  quarter  ending  September  30,  1848,  Post- 
holder  McClintock  says: 

**  The  Worrows,  as  well  as  every  other  tribe  of  Indian  inhabiting  the 
Rivers  Winey,  Bareema,  and  Amacuru,  and  also  various  other  streams  of 
leas  note  within  this  extensive  district,  are  up  to  the  present  moment  totally 


EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850.  Ql1 

unprovided  with  any  kind  of  instruction,  left  entirely  to  themselves  to  in- 
dulge in  all  the  horrors  of  a  savage  life. 

******** 
**  It  may  be  well  to  observe  here  that  it  is  by  the  extraordinary  skill  and 
unerring  aim  with  the  arrow  of  the  Worrows  that  the  noted  Morococo 
[Maracot]  fishing  of  the  Lower  Oronoko  is  kept  up,  and,  although  intro- 
duced into  this  province  by  Spaniards,  the  fish  are  only  salted  by  them,  but 
on  all  occasions  caught  by  the  Warrow  Indians"  (B.  C.  VI.,  170). 

The  fact  last  stated  is  very  noteworthy,  in  vievsr  of  the  conten- 
tion in  the  British  Case  that  trade  is  an  element  of  political  con- 
trol. The  trade  in  maracot  was  carried  on  in  this  way:  the  fish 
were  caught  by  the  Warows  of  the  lower  Orinoco  and  Barima, 
who  were  experts  in  the  business.  The  Venezuelans  traded  with 
the  Indians  for  the  fish  on  the  spot,  and  then  brought  the  fish  to 
Essequibo  to  sell.  Thus,  they  not  only  carried  on  a  trade  with 
Essequibo,  but  they  carried  on  the  Indian  trade  in  the  disputed 
territory  as  well,  and  they  carried  it  on  with  the  knowledge  of 
the  British  authorities,  and  without  any  attempt  at  interference 
or  supervision  by  such  authorities.  British  colonists,  on  the  other 
hand,  carried  on  no  trade  in  Barima,  either  with  Venezuelans  or 
Indians. 

The  question  of  a  boundary  in  this  territory  is  the  subject  of 
frequent  suggestions  on  the  part  of  the  various  Colonial  authori- 
ties, and  they  throw  considerable  light  upon  the  way  in  which  the 
question  was  at  this  time  regarded.  The  physical  configuration 
of  the  district  remained  the  same  that  it  had  always  been.  An 
open  and  easy  access  to  it  from  the  Orinoco  by  way  of  the  deep 
channel  of  the  Barima,  the  Mora  Passage  and  the  Waini,  were  the 
conditions  on  the  west,  while  on  the  east  the  frontier  post  of 
Pomeroon  was  separated  from  it  by  the  savanna,  through  which 
the  passage,  ten  miles  long  (V.  C.  p.  27)  was  difficult  and  uncertain. 

Thus,  in  February,  1839,  when  Superintendent  Crichton  made 
his  first  trip  to  Barima  from  Pomeroon,  he  "learned  also  that  I 
could  not  proceed  through  the  savannah,  as  it  was  almost  dry,  and 
totally  impassible    except  for  very  small  corials.     Prepared  to 


678  EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850. 

return  down  the  creek,  and  proceeded  by  the  sea-coast"  (B.  C. 
VI,  68).  On  starting  for  his  return,  in  March,  from  Mora  Creek, 
he  learned  ''that  the  rollers  were  at  present  so  heavy  that  a 
corial  could  not  proceed  by  the  coast,  and  the  inland  communica- 
tions were  all  nearly  dry."  Therefore,  as  a  choice  of  evils,  he 
took  the  same  passage,  by  which,  after  a  journey  lasting  for  two 
days,  "and  in  repeated  danger  of  being  swamped,"  he  came  to 
Monica  (B.  C.  VI,72). 

In  a  report  of  Postholder  McClintock  for  the  quarter  ending 
December  31,  1848  (B.  C.  VI,  171),  he  states: 

"  The  want  of  a  canal  through  this  part  of  Upper  Morocco  forms  a 
complete  harrier  for  several  months  of  the  year  to  all  communication  with 
the  Rivers  Winey,  Barima,  and  Oronoko,  thereby  cutting  off,  although  for 
a  time  only,  that  intercourse  so  essential  to  the  general  welfare  of  the  Pome- 
roon  district,  but  more  especially  to  the  Arabian  coast." 

This  is  strong  testimony  by  McClintock,  not  only  to  the 
natural  barrier  west  of  Moruca,  but  incidentally  to  the  import- 
ance of  the  trade  exclusively  carried  on  by  the  Venezuelans 
from  Orinoco  through  the  coast  territory  to  the  British  settle- 
ments in  Essequibo. 

Such  being  the  physical  configuration  of  the  country,  and  in 
the  absence  of  any  steps  taken  by  the  Colonial  authorities  to 
exercise  control  over  the  region,  the  suggestions  of  the  officials 
of  British  Guiana  as  to  the  question  of  boundary  are  somewhat 
speculative.  They  serve,  however,  to  throw  light  on  the  pres- 
ent British  contention. 

Governor  Light,  in  a  dispatch  dated  September  1,  1838,  wrote: 

"  The  Pomaroon  river,  at  the  western  extremity  of  Essequibo,  may  be 
taken  us  a  limit  to  the  country,  though  there  is  a  mission  supported  by 
the  colony  on  the  Maracca  river  or  creek,  a  short  distance  westward,  where 
600  Spanish  Indians  are  collected  in  a  settlement  under  a  Roman-catholic 
priest  "(V.  C.,p.  167). 

It  is  suggested  that  the  word  "country"  is  or  should  be 
••county,"  though  the  context  seems  to  imply  the  contrary.     It 


EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850.  679 

does  not  make  much  difference,  however,  as  there  was  nothing  of 
the  country  beyond  the  county. 

We  have  seen  that  Quartermaster-General  Hilhouse  in  1834 
regarded  the  post  of  Pomeroon  as  "definitory  of  the  jurisdic- 
tion westv/ard  "  (B.  C,  VI,  52). 

Of  the  various  advocates  of  the  extension  of  British  territory, 
none  was  more  earnest  than  Crichton,  the  Superintendent  of 
Rivers  and  Creeks  in  the  Pomeroon  district.  We  have  seen 
how,  in  April,  1839  (B.  C,  VI,  76),  referring  to  the  whole  dis- 
trict west  of  Moruca,  he  said:  "It  would  be  good  policy  to 
secure  the  absolute  possession  of  it  to  this  Colony."  This  is  at 
least  evidence  that  possession  of  it  had  not  been  secured  to 
the  colony  at  that  time. 

Crichton  had  given  evidence  of  his  uncertainty  on  the  sub- 
ject a  couple  of  months  before,  in  his  first  journey  to  Barima, 
where  complaint  was  made  to  him  that  one  Manoel,  an  Indian, 
had  murdered  his  wife.  He  said  (B.  C,  VI,  71):  "  Finding  that 
this  unfortunate  transaction  had  taken  place  ...  on  the  left 
bank  of  the  Barima  River,  ivhere  the  Oovernment  has  never 
claimed  jurisdiction,  I  felt  the  difficulty  of  taking  a  decided 
step  in  the  matter,  and  endeavoured  to  restore  peace  among 
them  by  reason  and  persuasion  first  and  then  threats,  and  imag- 
ined that  I  had  succeeded."  As  he  was  about  to  leave  the 
settlement  he  found  that  Manoel  was  making  a  disturbance, 
and  notwithstanding  his  doubts  he  took  him  away  with  him. 
Manoel  was  not  tried,  however,  but  shortly  after  returned  to 
his  home. 

In  a  report  dated  April  20,  1839,  Crichton  discusses  the  bound- 
ary question  from  the  speculative  or  political  standpoint  (B.  C, 
VI,  76-7): 

"  The  unfortunate  case  of  the  Indian,  Pero  Mauvel  [Manoel],  as  stated 
in  the  journal  of  your  reporter,  would  seem  to  point  out  the  necessity  of  con- 
cluding an  arrangement  with  the  Republic  of  Columbia  respecting  the 
western  boundary-line  of  this  Colony,  which,    in  the  humble  opinion  of 


680  EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850. 

your  reporter,  should  include  the  mouth  of  the  Barima  Kiver,  and  all  its 
tributary  creeks  from  the  sea  to  the  Cayoni  Eiver. 

"The  internal  communication  by  water  which  commences  with  the 
Tapacooma  is  entirely  cut  off  by  the  Barima  River,  and  commences  again, 
with  the  Amacoora  Creek  to  the  Orinoco,  thus  marking  the  natural  bound- 
ary of  the  province  between  the  Barima  and  Amacoora. 

« If  the  right  bank  of  the  Barima  River  were  taken  as  the  boundary,  and 
all  the  extensive  creeks  which  enter  that  stream  on  its  left  bank  remain 
subject  to  the  Columbian  State,  this  Colony  would  be  subjected  to  the  dan- 
ger of  having  all  the  runaways  from  either  Government  congregating  on 
that  fertile  region  without  the  right  of  control,  and  it  is  too  distant  from 
the  seat  of  the  Columbian  Government  for  its  influence  to  be  otherwise 
than  only  partially  felt,  especially  as  the  aborigines  look  to  this  Colony  for 
protection. 

"  If  the  Wyena  were  selected  as  the  boundary-line,  the  evil  would  be 
greatly  increased  by  leaving  a  wider  field  of  operation  unoccupied." 

A  curious  fact  with  reference  to  Crichtoii's  remarks  is  that  he, 
as  well  as  many  others  in  the  colony,  seemed  to  consider 
that  the  question  of  boundary  was  a  question  not  of  right  or  of 
territorial  title,  but  a  thing  to  be  fixed  by  Her  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment, and  about  which  the  Colonial  officials  had  only  to  make 
valuable  suggestions,  which  the  Government  might  then  carry  out. 
He  regards  it  solely  from  the  point  of  view  of  expediency,  and 
it  is  perfectly  evident  that,  as  far  as  right  is  concerned,  he  knows 
none  beyond  Moruca  either  to  the  Waini,  to  the  Barima,  or  beyond. 

Shortly  after  this  Schomburgk  appears  on  the  scene  with  his 
scientific  frontier,  based  on  the  doctrine  of  "convenient  natural 
boundaries."  Schomburgk,  as  is  well  known,  was  employed 
simply  as  a  surveyor,  and  Lord  Aberdeen  expressly  stated  in  the 
correspondence  which  followed  the  erection  of  his  boundary  posts 
that  the  planting  of  the  posts  were  "merely  a  preliminary 
measure  open  to  future  discussion"  (V.  C,  III,  199,  204,  207), 
and,  at  the  request  of  Venezuela,  they  were  actually  removed. 
Nevertheless,  they  had  great  influence  in  stiffening  up  the  ideas 
of  all  the  officials  of  the  colony.  Thus,  Superintendent 
King,  in  1841,  heard  that    a    murder  had  been  committed   in 


EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  PROM  1814  TO  1850.  681 

the  Aruka,  and  in  reporting  the  fact  stated  (B.  C,  VI., 
112),  that  he  "although  this  murder  was  committed  beyond  what 
he  ahuays  considered  to  he  the  limits  of  British  Guiana,  but 
within  the  assumed  limits  of  Her  Majesty's  Commissioner  of 
Survey  for  British  Guiana  [Schomburgk]  felt  it  his  duty  to  have 
the  body  exhumed,  and  accordingly  held  an  inquest  thereon." 
Here  the  Superintendent  himself  traces  the  direct  connection 
between  Schomburgk's  ''assumed  Hmits"  and  his  own  change 
of  mind  in  reference  to  the  boundary.  Such  is  the  effect  of  the 
setting  up  of  posts  by  Her  Majesty's  Commissioner. 

It  is  this  change  of  mind  in  1841  and  its  consequences  which 
Her  Majesty's  Government  now  claim  should  be  taken  into 
account  by  the  Arbitrators  in  determining  the  extent  of  Dutch 
territories  in  1814. 

The  same  change  due  to  the  same  influences,  is  noticeable  in 
Postholder  McClintock,  who  says,  in  a  report  of  December  31, 
1848  (B.  a,  VL,  p.  172): 

"  Your  reporter,  therefore,  with  a  view  to  obviate  this  difficulty,  begs 
leave  to  suggest  now,  as  the  bouiidary  of  British  Guiana  is  defined,  and  no 
likelihood  of  any  interference  by  the  Venezuelan  Government,  that  a  Mis- 
sion forthwith  be  established  on  the  Bareema  for  the  convenience  of  the 
Worrow  Indians  of  that  river,  and  another  on  the  Winey  for  Accaways." 

In  accordance  with  this,  he  at  the  same  time  suggests  the 
names  of  Indian  captains  for  various  localities  in  that  region, 
namely,  Assakata,  Waini,  Barama,  and  the  Upper  and  Lower 
Barima. 

Governor  D'Urban,  in  a  letter  to  Lord  Goderich,  October  18, 
1827  (B.  C.  VI,  39),  had  already  given  a  suggestion  as  to  the 
boundaries  of  the  colony: 

"On  the  north,  the  sea  coast,  from  the  mouth  of  the  Abary  to  Cape 
Barima,  near  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco. 

"On  the  west,  a  line  running  north  and  south  from  Cape  Barima  into 
the  interior." 

The  Governor  does  not  seem  to  have  had  any  foundation  for 

this  particular  suggestion.     As  an  indication  of  the  way  in  which 


682  EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850. 

British  Colonial  Governors  followed  the  example  of  their  Dutch 
predecessors  in  "extending  boundaries"  by  correspondence  to  a 
great  variety  of  points,  it  is  extremely  valuable.  It  turns  entirely 
on  Point  Barima.  It  amounts  to  saying:  "We  will  take  that; 
and  as  for  the  rest  of  it,  run  a  north  and  south  line,  and  there 
you  have  the  boundary."  Such  a  line  of  course  cuts  Schom- 
biirgk's  zig-zag  at  every  turn,  and  bears  no  particular  relation  to 
anything  in  the  history  of  the  case. 

The  suggestion  of  Governor  D'Urban  in  1 827  is  the  first  that 
ever  was  made  in  the  entire  history  of  this  controversy  of  a  terri- 
torial frontier  on  the  Orinoco  River.  The  Dutch  Director-General 
Storm,  with  his  movable  boundaries,  had  referred  many  times  to 
the  question  of  limits  in  the  coast  territory,  and  had  spoken  both 
of  the  Waini  and  the  Barima  as  a  possible  boundary,  his  most 
emphatic  statement  being  that  to  the  Governor  of  Surinam,  that 
he  believed  the  Spanish  were  right  in  claiming  the  Barima. 
Storm's  ideas,  however,  of  geography  were  entirely  vague,  and 
while  he  spoke  of  a  line  at  the  Barima,  he  had  no  knowledge 
where  the  Barima  was,  while  his  allusions  have  reference  to  some 
point  a  considerable  distance  above  the  river  mouth.  Governor- 
General  Sirtema  van  Grovestins  placed  the  boundary  at  the 
Moruca.  The  Company,  and  afterwards  the  Dutch  Government, 
never  stated  what  their  claim  of  boundary  was,  or  even  that  they 
had  any  claim. 

The  principal  suggestions  on  this  subject  had  come  from  Storm; 
but  even  Storm  never  in  terms  or  by  implication  suggested  a 
claim  to  any  territory  on  the  Orinoco  River  itself.  D'Anville's 
map,  to  which  Storm  referred,  does  not  put  the  boundary  on  the 
Orinoco,  and  the  whole  course  of  the  correspondence  and  acts  of 
the  Dutch  Colonial  authorities  is  such  as  to  indicate  that  no  one 
would  have  been  more  surprised  than  themselves  at  a  claim  of  a 
Dutch  frontier  on  the  Orinoco  River.  To  them  the  Orinoco  meant 
Spain  just  as  much  as  the  Essequibo  meant  the  Netherlands. 
There  never  was  the  slightest  doubt  or  suggestion  that  jurisdic- 


EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850.  683 

tion,  whatever  it  was,  had  been,  or  could  by  any  possibility  be, 
extended  to  that  river. 

At  the  close  of  the  Dutch  period,  as  has  been  already  stated^  in 
1802,  Major  McCreagh  reported  the  existence  of  five  posts,  four  of 
them  moie  or  less  fortified,  with  garrisons  and  in  command  of 
army  officers,  on  the  lower  Orinoco,  below  Angostura,  the  lowest 
one  being  the  pilot  establishment  at  the  Island  of  Papagos,  oppo- 
site the  mouth  of  Aratura,  the  first  branch  of  the  Orinoco  above 
the  Amacura  and  only  a  few  miles  from  the  mouth  of  the  Ori- 
noco itself.  The  pilot  station  at  Papagos  still  continued  to  exist 
in  1836.  In  addition,  there  had  been  established  during  this 
period  another  post  at  the  Island  of  Kuriapo,  a  few  miles  above 
Papagos,  with  a  civil  functionary  in  charge,  called  by  the  English 
a  "  Postholder." 

Contrasting  the  situation  between  Venezuelan  and  British 
Guiana  in  the  Barima,  Schomburgk,  the  most  earnest  advocate  of 
British  boundary  claims,  and  indeed  their  inventor,  says  (B.  C. 
VII,  13): 

"  Venezuela  has  a  Post  and  a  Commandant  within  a  short  distance  from 
the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco ;  the  post  nearest  to  the  western  boundary  of 
British  Guiana  is  in  the  Eiver  Pomeroon,  a  distance  of  120  miles  from  the 
Amacura ;  and  it  follows,  consequently,  that  the  Postholder  of  the  Pome- 
roon can  never  exercise  Ms  injluence  or  protection  over  the  Indians  wJio  are 
settled  on  the  Barima,  or  its  tributaries." 

As  has  been  already  suggested  referring  to  the  period  prior  to 
1814,  an  occupation  of  a  river,  such  as  that  of  Spain  in  1802  of  the 
the  lower  Orinoco,  with  the  city  of  Angostura,  the  four  fortified 
posts  below  it  and  the  pilot  station  at  Papagos,  would  be  sufficient, 
when  that  occupation  dates  back  three  hundred  years,  to  settle  the 
question  of  the  title  to  the  river  until  its  waters  were  lost  in  the 
sea.  What  the  British  Case  could  advance  in  opposition  to  the 
title  evidenced  by  that  occupation  it  is  difficult  to  see. 

But  the  British  Government  itself,  by  the  official  act  of  its  rep- 
resentatives, has  distinctly  disclaimed  any  title  to  territory  on  the 


(jg4  EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850. 

banks  of  the  Orinoco,  and  in  particular  to  Barima  Point.  On 
May  26, 1836,  a  remarkable  letter  was  addressed  by  Sir  Robert  Ker 
Porter,  at  that  time  Her  Majesty's  Charge  d' Affaires  at  Car- 
acas, to  the  Venezuelan  Secretary  of  State  (V.  C.  Ill,  189-92). 
This  long  document  deserves  the  most  careful  reading.  Sir 
Robert  Porter  begins  by  stating  that— 

"  From  a  recent  correspondence  I  have  held  with  His  Majesty's  Consul 
in  Angostura  I  have  to  request  the  serious  attention  of  the  Executive  to  a 
representation  I  am  about  to  make  relative  to  the  more  safe  navigation  for 
vessels  on  entering  the  principal  mouth  of  the  Orinoco." 

His  Majesty's  representative  then  refers  to  the  dangers  to 
which  vessels  are  subject  for  the  want  of  proper  land  and  water 
marks  to  guide  them,  and  remonstrates  on  the  condition  of  the  ' 
pilot  establishment  on  the  island  of  "Papagayos,"  which  as  we 
have  seen  was  already  in  existence  in  1802.  He  refers  to  two 
British  vessels  that  had  been  wrecked,  one  on  the  coast  of 
Barima,  the  other  on  a  shoal  off  Cape  Barima;  one  for  want  of  a 
beacon  to  point  out  the  proper  entrance,  the  other  for  want  of  a 
pilot.     He  goes  on: 

**  It  becomes  my  official  duty  to  represent  to  the  Executive  of  this  Re- 
public the  indispensable  necessity  (and  that  without  further  delay)  of  plac- 
ing a  conspicuous  beacon  on  Cape  Barima,  the  point  forming  the  grand 
mouth  of  the  Orinoco  to  the  south-south-east,  where  I  am  given  to  under- 
stand it  could  be  done  with  the  greatest  facility,  and  to  the  greatest  advan- 
tage. The  object  would  effectually  prove  a  sure  mark,  as  also  safeguard  for 
all  vesaels  seeking  pro])er  entrance  into  this  vast  river." 

He  refers  to  the  island  of  Cangresos  (Cancrejo  or  Crab  Island) 
as  forming  ''  the  other  side  of  the  great  mouth,"  and  to  the  sand- 
banks, "  which  reduce  the  only  navigable  channel  to  scarcely  three 
miles  in  width,  which  commence  on  passing  the  bar,  just  without 
Cape  Barima."  He  says:  "  Buoys  ought  to  be  laid  down  at  those 
particular  points"  which  mark  the  channel  or  the  sand-banks. 
He  adds:  "  I  am  well  aware  that  a  pilot-boat  was  intended  to  have 
gone  out  every  day  from  Point  Barima  to  cruise  for  vessels  bearing 
towards  the  entrance  of  the  river;"  and  he  remonstrates  with  the 


EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850.  685 

Government  for  not  seeing  that  this  intention  was  fully  and 
properly  carried  out.  He  uses  the  strongest  language  in  reference 
to  these  measures,  and  says: 

"  I  therefore  seize  the  present  occasion  in  endeavoring  to  impress  upon  the 
Executive  the  imperious  necessity  of  promptly  taking  stable  and  energetic 
measures  in  the  regulation  of  that  wliich  is  of  such  vital  importance  to  the 
growing  trade  of  Angostura." 

He  dwells  upon  the  fact  that  not  only  in  England,  but  in  many 
of  her  colonies,  merchants  are  afraid  to  send  their  vessels  to 
the  Orinoco,  in  consequence  of  these  dangers,  and  adds  that  at 
Lloyds  no  insurance  can  be  effected  to  that  river  without  a  very 
considerable  advance.  He  lays  before  the  Government  the  protest 
which  "  His  Majesty's  Consul  at  Angostura  .  ,  .  found  it  his 
indispensable  duty  to  call  to  the  observance  of  the  Governor  of 
the  Province  of  Guayana."    He  closes  by  saying: 

"  I  must  once  more  repeat  my  solicitude  that  the  Minister  of  Marine 
be  directed  to  investigate  and  correct  the  abuses  which  have  frustrated  tha 
good  intent  of  the  Government  and  that  Department,  and  likewise  that  he 
be  directed  to  attend  to  the  recommendation  I  now  have  the  honour  of  mak- 
ing by  placing  a  proper  beacon  on  the  Barima  Cape,  as  also  the  appropriate 
buoys  in  the  Orinoco  for  the  safer  navigation  of  it,  so  that  I  may  be  enabled, 
in  a  very  short  time  (and  I  trust  the  urgency  will  be  seen),  to  have  the  satis- 
faction of  officially  communicating  to  His  Majesty's  Principal  Secretary  of 
State  for  Foreign  Affairs  (for  the  information  of  the  merchants  interested  at 
Lloyd's)  the  measures  that  have  been  taken  by  this  Government,  rendering 
the  great  entrance  to  the  Orinoco  perfectly  perceptible,  as  also  the  naviga- 
tion of  the  river  up  to  Angostura  perfectly  safe." 

The  Venezuelan  Government  answered  on  June  15  (V.  C. 
Ill,  192),  that  the  matter  had  been  called  to  the  attention  of  the 
Minister  of  Marine,  and  that  suitable  orders  would  be  given  to 
carry  out  the  undertaking. 

Not  content  with  his  previous  communication,  Sir  Robert 
Porter  again,  on  September  14,  1836,  recurred  to  the  subject. 
I  (V.  C.  in,  192).     He  said: 

"I  seize  this  opportunity  (as  in  some  degree  connected  with  my  subject) 
[to  request  you  will  inform  me  (for  the  information  of  my  own  Govern- 


gg<5  EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850. 

ment)  whether  anything  has  yet  been  actually  done  as  to  erecting  the  light- 
house or  beacon  which  I  pointed  out  to  the  Government  (many  months 
ago)  as  absolutely  necessary  at  the  Boca  Grande  of  the  Orinoco." 

Here  is  as  strong  an  admission  as  could  be  made  of  the  exclu- 
sive territorial  dominion  of  Venezuela  over  not  only  the  mouth  of 
the  Orinoco,  but  specifically  over  the  territory  on  the  right  bank, 
both  of  the  Orinoco  and  of  the  Barima  at  Barima  Point. 

The  light-house  was  not  erected  at  the  mouth  of  the  river, 
although  in  consequence  of  the  request  of  Sir  R.  Porter,  an  Act 
of  the  Congress  of  Venezuela,  approved  May  11,  1842,  provided 
for  its  erection  (V.  C.-C.  III.  165).  A  light-ship  was,  how- 
ever, established  by  the  War  and  Navy  Department  of  Venezuela, 
between  Sabaneta  and  Barima  Points,  shortly  after  the  passage 
of  the  Act.  This  light-ship  was  in  place  in  1846,  and  is  mentioned 
by  Sir  H.  Barkly  in  1850  (B.  C.  VI,  183).  The  hght  ship  was 
established  and  maintained  by  the  keeper  Moron  under  a  contract 
with  the  Venezuelan  Government  (V.  C.  Ill,  185). 

In  1887  Venezuela  decided  to  accede  to  the  request  which  had 
been  so  urgently  pressed  by  the  British  Charge  d' Affaires  and  re- 
place the  light-ship  with  a  light  house  on  Point  Barima;  where- 
upon the  Foreign  Secretary,  the  Earl  of  Iddesleigh,  wrote,  Jan- 
uary 12,  1887,  to  Mr.  St.  John,  British  Minister  at  Caracas  (B.  C. 
VII,  p.  118)  directing  him  to  ''inform  President  Blanco  that  the 
request  by  the  British  Consul  for  the  erection  of  such  a  light- 
house in  1836,  to  which  his  Excellency  referred  in  conversation 
with  you  as  justifying  the  intention  which  he  announced,  was 
unknown  to  and  unauthorized  by  the  British  Government  of  the 
day." 

This  extraordinary  repudiation  of  the  demand  of  its  own  rep- 
resentative, made  half  a  century  before,  would  seem,  to  say 
the  least,  to  show  a  certain  laxity  of  correspondence  in  the  Brit- 
ish Diplomatic  Service  of  that  period  which  is  worthy  of  remark. 
The  officers  of  this  Service,  it  appears,  did  not  hesitate  to  make 
the  most  pressing  and  urgent  demands— in  fact  dictatorial  would 


EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850.  687 

not  be  too  strong  a  word— of  the  Governments  to  which  they 
were  accredited,  not  only  without  any  authority,  but  even  with- 
out conveying  to  the  Foreign  Office  any  intimation  that  such  de- 
mands were  being  made. 

It  appears,  however,  that  in  1842  the  Foreign  Office  was  in- 
formed of  Sir  Robert  Porter's  demand  and  actually  received  copies 
of  the  entire  correspondence.  Mr.  O'Leary,  his  successsor  at  Car- 
acas, having  referred  to  the  correspondence,  was  directed  by  the 
Foreign  Office  to  send  a  copy  of  it,  which  copy  he  sent,  accom- 
panied by  a  letter  of  September  1,  1842,  which  was  marked  at  the 
Foreign  Office  as  "  Received  October  14."  Mr.  O'Leary 's  letter, 
together  with  the  correspondence  between  Sir  Robert  Porter  and 
Seilor  Gallegos  is  to  be  found  in  B.  C.  VII,  82. 

Apart  from  the  Minister's  failure  to  report  action,  however,  in 
which  Her  Majesty's  Government  in  1887  saw  fit  to  take  refuge, 
the  mere  fact  that  Sir  Robert  Porter  made  the  request,  either 
authorized  or  unauthorized,  is  one  the  significance  of  which 
cannot  be  questioned.  Lord  Iddesleigh  stated  that  the  request  had 
been  made  by  "the  British  Consul."  This  was  apparently  an  in- 
advertence, as  it  is  stated  by  the  British  Counter- Case  (p.  127) 
that  "  the  request  referred  to  was  made  by  Sir  Robert  Ker  Porter, 
the  British  Charge  d' Affaires  at  Caracas,  on  the  suggestion  of  the 
Vice-Consul  at  Angostura."  As  such,  he  was  the  Diplomatic 
Representative  of  Her  Majesty's  Government. 

Sir  Robert  Porter  was  the  Minister  of  Great  Britain  in  Vene- 
zuela. He,  if  anybody,  was  familiar  with  the  question  of  the 
boundary.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the  British  Minister  in 
Venezuela  could  be  entirely  ignorant  of  the  claim  of  his  govern- 
ment, if  claim  there  was,  as  to  the  frontier  between  the  posses- 
sions of  his  own  country  and  those  of  the  country  to  which  he 
was  accredited.  He  could  not  have  failed  to  know  whether  his 
government  placed  the  frontier  at  Pomeroon,  where  its  post  was, 
or  at  the  Orinoco,  where  the  Venezuelan  station  was,  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  miles  along  the  coast  to  the  westward.    If  his  Gov- 


ggg  EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814:  TO  1850. 

ernment  claimed  the  Orinoco  mouth  and  Point  Barima,  he  would 
be  the  first  man  to  know  it;  and  his  request,  or  rather  his 
demand,  an  immediate  reply  to  which  he  desired  for  transmission 
to  the  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  which  demand 
necessarily  implied  a  recognition  of  the  sovereignty  of  Venezuela 
over  that  very  point,  is  a  committal  which  the  British  Govern- 
ment cannot  repudiate,  whether  this  or  that  particular  office, 
secretary  or  clerk  was  aware  of  it  or  not,  certainly  not  after 
the  lapse  of  fifty  years,  when  in  the  meantime  it  had  been 
"for  topographical  reasons"  extending  its  territorial  claims. 
Still  less  can  the  British  Government  take  refuge  in  its  failure  to 
repudiate  Sir  Robert  Porter's  act,  when  its  own  published  corre- 
spondence proves  that  the  Foreign  Office  was  perfectly  cognizant 
of  the  act  and  of  all  the  surrounding  circumstances  in  1842,  and 
that  the  document  received  on  October  14  of  that  year  is  in  its 
archives.  Knowledge,  it  is  true,  is  not  brought  home  by  the 
papers  to  what  Lord  Iddesleigh  calls  "  the  Government  of  the 
day,"  but  it  is  brought  home  to  the  Government  of  six  years  later. 
The  letter  of  Sir  Robert  Porter  represented  the  matter  as  of  vital 
importance  to  British  commerce  and  to  British  interests;  that 
until  the  lighthouse  was  erected,  British  ships  could  not  get  insur- 
ance for  the  Orinoco,  and  that  its  absence  practically  put  a  stop  to 
their  trade  in  that  locality,  and  had  caused  the  wreck  of  two 
valuable  ships  a  short  time  before. 

According  to  Lord  Iddesleigh's  theory,  the  obligation  which  Sir 
Robert  Porter  had  represented  in  such  emphatic  terms  as  resting 
upon  the  Venezuelan  Government  for  the  protection  of  British  - 
interests  was  an  obligation  that  really  rested  upon  the  British 
Government  for  the  protection  of  its  own  interests.  Yet  what 
did  the  British  Government  do  after  its  attention  was  called  to 
this  matter  in  1842?  Did  it  build  a  lighthouse?  Did  it  say  to 
Venezuela:  "This  is  our  territory.  Of  course  we  want  a  light- 
house, and  our  representative  made  the  mistake  of  addressing  the 
demand  to  you.    We  beg  your  pardon.     We  did  not  intend  that 


EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850.  689 

he  should  make  such  a  demand  on  you,  because,  of  course,  it 
being  our  territory,  it  is  our  duty  to  build  the  hghthouse,  and 
we  should  reimburse  you  for  any  expense  you  have  incurred 
on  account  of  our  unwarranted  demand."  The  British  Gov- 
ernment did  nothing  of  the  kind.  This  was  eight  years  be- 
fore the  Agreement  of  1850,  and  nothing  stood  in  the  way  of  ac- 
tion; it  was  at  the  very  time  when  Schomburgk's  posts  were 
the  subject  of  protest  and  disclaimer;  yet  the  Government 
chose  to  leave  their  position  in  Venezuela  defined  by  Sir  Robert 
Porter's  demand  for  the  construction  of  the  hghthouse,  never  with- 
drew it,  never  modified  it,  never  suggested  that  their  representative 
had  been  in  error,  and  by  their  inaction  left  the  demand  as  it  was 
when  it  was  first  made.  The  case  was  peculiarly  one  where  in- 
action involved  acquiescence,  for  the  knowledge  was  brought 
home  to  the  Foreign  Office  itself  that  its  Minister  had  made  a 
demand  for  a  public  work,  involving  large  expense  to  Venezuela, 
as  being  a  duty  that  Venezuela  had  to  perform,  and  it  had  further 
notice  from  its  Minister,  Mr.  O'Leary  (B.  C.  VII,  81),  that  the 
Venezuelan  Government  were  acting  upon  it,  and  had  passed  a 
law  for  the  erection  of  the  light  (May  24,  1842).  Her  Majesty's 
Government  also  knew  that,  in  compliance  with  Sir  R.  Porter's 
request,  the  Venezuelan  Government  had  gone  to  the  expense  of 
establishing  and  maintaining  a  lightship  at  Barima  Point,  where 
it  has  been  maintained  ever  since.  Great  Britain  cannot,  in  1887, 
be  permitted  to  say:  *'The  demand  was  unknown  to  the  Gov- 
ernment of  that  day,  and  therefore  we  are  not  bound  by  it.' 
It  was  known  to  the  Government  of  1842.  It  was  acquiesced 
in  by  that  Government,  because  it  was  never  withdrawn  and 
Venezuela  was  left  to  suppose  that,  in  the  view  of  the  British 
Government,  it  was  bound  by  the  obligation  of  a  riparian  pro- 
prietor to  commit  itself  to  that  expense. 

Sir  H.  Barkly,  Governor  of  British  Guiana,  in  a  letter  of  Sep- 
tember 20,  1860,  to  Earl  Gray  (B.   C.   VI,   183),   states  that  he 


g90  EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850. 

had  called  for  a  report  from  Superintendent  McClintock  as  to 
whether  any  movement  had  been  made  by  the  Venezuelan 
authorities  having  in  view  the  occupation  of  any  portion  of  the 
territory  comprehended  within  the  Schomburgk  line. 

As  the  Superintendent  stated  that  he  had  not  lately  traveled 
as  far  as  the  Orinoco,  which  was  two  hundred  miles  from  Pom- 
eroon  (as  far  as  the  evidence  shows,  he  had  not  been  there  for  six 
years),  the  Governor  himself  made  an  examination.  He  stated 
that  their  nearest  settlement  was  Cariape  [Kuriapo],  on  the 
Orinoco,  30  or  40  miles  beyond  the  Amakuru.  Another  post  was 
higher  up  at  Barrancas.  He  does  not  mention  the  pilot  station  at 
Pagayos,  which  was  much  nearer,  doubtless  because  he  only  re- 
ferred to  settlements.  He  also  stated  that  a  lightship  had  been 
established  off  Point  Barima,  ''for  the  purpose  of  guiding  vessels 
entering  the  Orinoco,  here  14  miles  wide."  According  to  Sir  R. 
Porter,  the  channel  was  three  miles  wide,  but  the  hydrography  of 
the  Orinoco  was  better  known  at  Caracas  than  at  Georgetown. 

In  reference  to  the  lightship,  Sir  Henry  Barkly  stated  that 
"  this  project  was  doubtless  substituted  for  that  of  a  lighthouse, 
which  it  was  formerly  proposed  in  the  Venezuelan  Chambers,  to 
build  on  Point  Barima,  in  the  teeth  of  our  pretensions  to  its  pos- 
session." This  is  rather  hard  on  Venezuela,  seeing  that  the 
action  which  was  so  well  described  as  "in  the  teeth  of  our  pre- 
tensions "  had  been  not  only  proposed,  but  demanded  by  the  British 
representative  himself.  It  only  shows,  however,  that  the  Colonial 
Governor  was  deplorably  ignorant  of  the  action  of  Her  Majesty's 
Legation  in  Venezuela  on  the  boundary  question,  an  ignorance 
which  he  had  shared  with  the  Foreign  Office,  it  is  true,  but  which 
had  not  existed  at  the  Foreign  Office  since  1842.  Moreover,  it  is 
quite  possible  that  "our  pretensions"  had  attained  an  extra- 
ordinary and  rapid  growth  between  1836  and  1850,  for  which  the 
intervening  visit  of  Schomburgk  and  his  rectification  of  the  fron- 
tier were  no  doubt  responsible. 


EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850.  691 

Sir  Henry  Barkly  also  stated : 

"As  the  ship  is  moored  a  mile  or  two  from  the  shore,  and  is  owned,  as 
stated  to  me,  by  private  individuals  trading  from  Angostura  to  the  ports  of 
this  Colony,  I  am  not  aware  that  it  can  be  considered  any  disturbance  of 
the  status  quo  on  the  part  of  the  Venezuelan  Government,  though  it  may 
be  advisable  to  instruct  Her  Majesty's  Charge  d' Affaires  to  obtain  explana- 
tions on  the  subject. " 

Sir  Henry's  error  in  reference  to  the  private  character  of  the 
lightship  was  no  doubt  due  to  the  fact  that  the  lightship  was 
established  and  maintained  by  a  keeper  under  contract  with  the 
Venezuelan  Government.  It  was  none  the  less,  however,  a  Vene- 
zuelan establishment,  maintained  at  the  very  mouth  of  the 
Orinoco  and  "  moored  a  mile  or  two  from  the  shore."  As  such  it 
was  and  is  a  clear  mark  of  Venezuelan  sovereignty  at  Point 
Barima,  and  if  the  British  claimed  Point  Bariraa,  Sir  Henry  was 
right  in  saying  that  it  was  "  advisable  to  instruct  Her  Majesty's 
Charge  d' Affaires  to  obtain  explanations  on  the  subject." 

The  British  Government,  however,  notwithstanding  Governor 
Barkly's  "pretensions"  to  Point  Bariraa,  notwithstanding  the 
significance  of  the  Venezuelan  lightship,  moored  a  mile  or  two 
from  the  shore,  and  notwithstanding  the  overwhelming  iuiport- 
ance  to  British  commerce  of  the  maintenance  of  the  light, 
never,  so  far  as  the  evidence  shows,  took  the  step  which  the  Gov- 
ernor recommended.  As  in  the  case  of  Sir  Robert  Porter's  request 
it  made  no  disclaimer,  so  in  the  case  of  the  lightship  it  made  no 
protest,  and  the  lightship  has  remained  there  for  fifty  years. 

The  position  of  the  British  Government,  therefore,  both  in  the 
Foreign  Office  and  in  the  Colonial  Office,  by  the  tacit  approval  of 
Sir  Robert  Porter's  request  and  by  acquiescence  in  the  establish- 
ment of  the  lightship  in  consequence  of  it,  has  amounted  to  a 
clear  disavowal  of  any  right  to  Point  Barima.  Nor  up  to  1850  had 
it  ever  in  any  official  correspondence  made  any  such  claim. 

The  reasons  stated  by  Sir  H.  Barkly  for  insisting  upon  Point 
Bariraa  are  that  it  is  essential  to  British  interests:  first,  that  th© 


592  EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850. 

coasting  trade  of  the  colony  would  be  at  the  mercy  of  any  Power 
whose  privateers  should  rendezvous  in  the  Orinoco  during  a 
war;  secondly,  commercial  intercourse  between  the  Orinoco  and 
the  British  West  Indies  would  be  restricted  to  what  would  be  car- 
ried on  by  the  colony  of  Trinidad  through  the  western  channels  of 
the  Orinoco;  thirdly,  the  supply  of  cattle  (which  was  an  import- 
ant product  of  the  Orinoco)  would  be  cut  off. 

The  importance  to  Venezuela  of  being  able  to  control  the 
mouth  of  its  own  river  is  not  considered. 

Perhaps  the  most  important  point  referred  to  in  Governor 
Barkly's  letter  is  one  mentioned  in  connection  with  Lord  Aber- 
deen's offer  for  settling  the  boundary  question  by  a  line  starting 
at  the  Monica  (Br.  Atlas,  Map  4  C.-C).  "This  offer,"  says  Gov- 
ernor Barkly,  "  may  have  been  influenced  "by  "  Governor  Light's 
confidential  report  of  the  4th  March,  1842"  (B.  C.  VI,  183). 

It  is  evident  that  the  confidential  report  of  Governor  Light,  of 
1842,  which,  according  to  Sir  Henry  Barkly,  may  have  influenced 
Lord  Aberdeen  to  fix  Moruca  as  the  boundary,  is  a  document 
of  very  vital  moment  in  this  controversy.  Nevertheless,  it  no- 
where appears  in  the  British  Case.  That  Case  has  chosen  to  leave 
its  contents  to  the  inference  that  may  be  drawn  from  Sir  Henry 
Barkly's  reference  to  it.  The  inference,  which  is  inevitable,  is 
that  Governor  Light's  confidential  statement  was  conclusive  to  the 
British  authorities  as  to  the  western  limit  of  their  territories  at 
Moruca.  The  Arbitrators  have  a  right  to  infer  from  the  condition 
in  which  the  evidence  is  left  by  the  British  Case  that  such  was 
the  tenor  of  Governor  Light's  report.  The  inference  could  only  be 
avoided  by  the  production  of  the  letter  itself,  which  Her  Majesty's 
Government  has  not  chosen  to  print. 

Venezuela,  however,  was  taking  control  of  this  matter  for  her- 
self. At  this  time  a  Venezuelan  post  was  maintained  at  Kuriapo, 
one  of  the  islands  in  the  lower  Orinoco,  a  few  miles  above  the  pilot 
station  and  the  mouth  of  the  Amakuru.  The  Venezuelan  officer 
in  charge  of  this  post  made  frequent  visits  to  Barima.    The  British 


EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850.  693 

records,  which  refer  to  him  as  the  "Postholder  of  the  Orinoco," 
twice  mention  his  presence  even  at  Moruca.  Superintendent 
King  said,  in  1840  (B.  C.  VI,  94),  he  "met  here  Francisca  Rod- 
riques,  the  Postholder  of  the  Oronocco  ";  and  McClintock,  in  1843 
(B.  C.  VI,  127),  remarked  upon  the  fact  that  he  "  was  visited 
by  Jose  Rodinze,  Postholder  of  Corioppo,  a  village  in  Rio  Oronoko." 

Not  only  that,  but  the  policy  which  had  been  initiated  and  pur- 
sued with  such  vigor  by  the  Spaniards  of  keeping  a  patrol  boat  in 
Barima  was  continued  by  Venezuela. 

On  December  10,  1840,  Superintendent  King  reported  as  to  the 
Venezuelan  gunboat  in  the  Barima,  enclosing  "  a  statement  made 
by  Juan  Pirel,  who  is  now  in  Georgetown,  together  with  some 
others  from  the  Venezuelan  territory,  by  which  statement  you 
will  perceive  the  gunboat  is  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  Barima 
River,  and  which  river  is  our  boundary  "  (B.  C.  VI,  99). 

This  statement  as  to  the  boundary  by  the  Superintendent  of 
Rivers  and  Creeks  was  made  just  before  Schomburgk  had  devel- 
oped his  boundary  theory. 

He  added: 

*'  Some  time  ago  the  gun-boat  did  seize  some  corials,  but  these  belonged 
to  persons  from  the  Orinoque,  and  were  taken  in  the  Barima,  therefore  I 
did  not  report  the  circumstance,  it  being  beyond  my  jurisdiction. 

"  The  last  seizure  by  the  gun-boat  was  in  the  Mora  Creek,  and  some  of 
the  inhabitants  of  Morocco  were  taken  prisoners  by  the  Commander  of  the 
gun-boat  and  carried  to  the  Orinoque. 

"  You  will  also  perceive,  by  the  statement  herewith  sent,  that  the  Com- 
mander of  the  gun-boat  thinks  he  has  still  a  right  to  come  more  to  the  east- 
ward. 

"I  would  feel  obliged  by  your  informing  me  whether  I  shall,  for  the 
future,  endeavor  to  prevent  all  persons,  whether  Indians  or  others,  be- 
longing to  the  Venezuelan  territory,  from  entering  our  territory  without  a 
pass." 

It  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  very  important  answer  from  the 
Government  Secretary  to  the  above  letter  is  also  omitted  from  the 
documents  annexed  to  the  British  Case,  although  it  is  a  document 


0^  EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814:  TO  1850. 

to  which  Her  Majesty's  Government  alone  has  access.    As  to 
what  position  was  taken  by  the  Colonial  Government  upon  this 
direct  inquiry  of  a  most  important  character,  which  necessarily 
must  have  had  an  answer,  and  the  answer  to  which  is  in  posses-  f 
sion  of  Great  Britain,  no  information  is  given. 

McCUntock,  Postholder  in  Pomeroon,  reported  the  same  cir- 
cumstance (  B.  C.  VI,  105): 

"  Your  reporter,  having  received  directions  to  send  in  a  quarterly  Re- 
turn of  all  the  Indians  in  his  district,  he  proceeded  first  to  Morocco,  and 
while  preparing  himself  for  that  duty  information  was  lodged  that  a  Span- 
ish gun-boat  was  stationed  in  the  Barima  Eiver,  convenient  to  the  mouth 
of  the  Mora  Creek,  and  that  two  Spanish  Indians  attached  to  the  Morocco 
Mission  were  made  prisoners,  and  their  corial  and  a  variety  of  small  goods 
taken  from  them. 

"  Your  reporter,  on  the  receipt  of  this  information,  prepared  himself 
to  go  to  Barima,  but  on  reaching  the  Baramany  Creek  your  reporter  met 
one  of  the  said  Spanish  Indians  on  his  return  to  Morocco,  who  stated  that 
the  gun-boat  iiad  already  started  for  Angostura,  which  prevented  your  re- 
porter proceeding  further  than  the  mouth  of  the  Waini  River. " 

From  the  way  in  which  this  episode  is  referred  to  in  the  evi- 
dence annexed  to  the  British  Case,  it  may  be  inferred  that  no  pro- 
test was  made  against  the  acts  of  the  Venezuelan  gunboat. 

In  1841  a  Warow  chief  from  the  Canyaballi  was  reported  by 
Schomburgk  (B.  C.  VII,  11)  as  rejoicing  "that  at  last  it 
should  be  decided  whether  the  Waini  was  in  the  British  or  in  the 
Venezuelan  territory,  as  at  present  they  did  not  consider  them- 
selves secure  against  being  carried  away  by  the  Venezuelans,  and 
forced  to  work  at  low  wages  at  Angostura." 

Schomburgk  also  stated  (B.  C.  VII,  14)  that  the  Com- 
mandant of  the  Orinoco  had  taken  some  Indians  from  a  place 
between  the  Amakuru  and  Barima  a  short  time  before  to  Coriabo 
[Kuriapo].  Of  course  Schomburgk  listened  to  all  that  Indians 
had  to  say  about  Spanish  cruelty,  &c. ;  but  the  important  point  is 
that  a  Spanish  official,  according  to  Schomburgk's  testimony, 
was  exerciaing  control  in  the  territory  in  question. 


EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850.  695 

Schomburgk,  who  was  gathering  all  the  information  he  could 
that  reflected  on  the  Venezuelans,  again  unconsciously  bears  testi- 
mony to  the  presence  of  Venezuelans  in  the  Barima.  He  says 
(B.  C.  VII,  12):  "  Many  of  these  Indians  [in  the  ArukaJ  had 
to  relate  acts  of  cruelty  committed  by  the  Venezuelans."  This 
shows  that  the  Venezuelans  in  1841  made  a  practice  of  going  to 
Barima,  although  the  place   was  entirely  deserted  by  the  British. 

Whatever  the  above  facts  may  be  said  to  show  as  to  Vene- 
zuelan control,  they  clearly  negative  the  existence  of  British  con- 
trol in  the  coast  territory.  They  afford  proof,  however,  that  the 
Orinoco  was  held  and  actively  controlled  down  to  its  very  mouth 
by  the  presence  not  only  of  the  five  posts  mentioned  by  McCreagh, 
but  the  additional  post  of  Kuriapo  and  the  Venezuelan  light-ship 
at  the  mouth  of  the  river,  which  had  been  placed  there  in  compli- 
ance with  the  request  of  the  British  representative  to  build  a  light- 
house on  Point  Barima.  They  show  further  that  the  Command- 
ant at  Kuriapo  exercised  an  active  control  over  the  Indians  in 
Barima,  and  they  show  the  presence  of  a  Venezuelan  gunboat  in 
the  Barima  River  itself,  apprehending  Indians  residing  at  Moruca 
and  confiscating  their  goods.  They  fail  to  show  —and  this  failure 
is  in  its  way  as  significant  as  the  affirmative  proof — that  Great 
Britain,  having  official  knowledge  of  each  and  every  one  of  these 
facts,  all  of  them  occurring  before  the  Agreement  of  1850,  made 
any  protest  whatever  in  reference  to  them  or  took  the  slightest 
notice  of  them. 

It  appears  also  that  the  Venezuelan  Government  did  exercise 
control  in  the  lower  Orinoco,  and  that  it  had  the  civil  head 
of  its  lower  settlements  on  that  river,  called  by  the  British, 
by  analogy,  a  "  Postholder,"  visiting  even  the  Barima,  and 
that  its  coast-guard  vessel,  as  during  the  Dutch  period,  was 
patrolling  the  river  Barima.  Under  these  circumstances,  it 
would  seem  that,  entirely  apart  from  the  question  whether  the 
Treaty  does  or  does  not  take  cognizance  of  acts  of  dominion  by 
the  British  during  their  possession  of  British  Guiana,  there  were 


(J96  EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850. 

no  such  acts,  and  that  the  lower  Orinoco  and  Barima  remained, 
as  they  had  always  been,  an  acknowledged  part  of  the  territory 
of  Venezuela. 

It  may  be  well  to  note  the  fact  that  certain  Spanish  Indians 
left  the  Venezuelan  settlements  during  the  revolution  and  came 
through  the  Barima  to  Pomeroon,  which  was  evidently  at  that 
time  regarded  as  the  frontier  of  the  English  settlements.  Their 
arrival  is  referred  to  in  a  letter  of  Governor  John  Murray,  dated 
August  14,  1817  (B.  C.  VI,  1)  to  the  "  Second  Fiscal ": 

"Having  received  information  from  the  Postholder  in  Pomeroon  that 
a  considerable  number  of  Spaniards,  inhabitants  of  Oronoque,  have  arrived 
there  with  a  view  to  remaining  in  this  Government,  I  have  to  request  that 
your  Honour  will  be  pleased  to  take  measures  to  prevent  these  people  from 
extending  themselves  on  the  coast  between  the  Pomeroon  and  Essequibo 
Rivers,  at  the  latter  of  which  rivers  I  have  directed  that  they  should  remain 
until  further  measures  respecting  them  may  be  adopted." 

These  Spaniards  were  fugitives  from  the  Province  of  Venezuela, 
which  was  now  under  a  revolutionary  government.  Arrange- 
ments were  made  to  send  100  of  them  to  Porto  Rico,  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  Spanish  Ciovernment.  According  to  the  Minutes  of 
the  Court  of  Policy,  October  28,  1817  (B.  C.  VI,  8). 

"  Those  still  left  at  the  Post  requested  leave  to  remain  until  they  could 
return,  which  they  would  do  as  soon  as  means  would  be  found  to  take 
them  back  to  Oronoque,  so  that  a  speedy  prospect  might  be  entertained 
that  the  Colony  would  soon  be  entirely  freed  from  them. " 

The  Minutes  of  the  Court  further  say,  October  30,  1817  (B.  C. 
VI,  8)  that 

"His  Excellency  stated  to  the  Court  that  he  had  received  a  despatch 
from  Lieutenant  Mitchel,  containing  the  information  that  twenty  out  of 
the  Spanish  refugees  left  at  the  Post  had  quitted  to  return  to  Angostura, 
and  that  the  rest  were  then  preparing  to  follow,  so  that  it  was  probable  by 
this  time  the  whole  had  left  the  Colony." 

It  appears  from  the  above  that  the  limits  of  the  colony  at  that 
time  were  considered  by  the  Governor  and  by  the  Court  of  Policy 
to  be  fixed  at  the  Pomeroon. 


EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850.  69Y 

A  few  of  them,  however,  remained,  and,  in  1834,  Governor 
Smyth  made  a  grant,  to  certain  officials  of  the  Colony  as  trustees, 
of  a  tract  of  land  on  Moruca  Creek,  for  the  purposes  of  a  church 
for  the  Spanish  Indians  who  had  temporarily  established  them- 
selves at  that  point  (B.  C.  VI,  54.). 

The  fugitives  seem,  however,  to  have  rapidly  disappeared.  A 
memorandum,  apparently  of  1838  (B.  C.  VI,  62),  stated  to  be  by 
the  missionary  at  Moruca,  says: 

'*  In  the  Mission  of  Morocco  there  are  now  no  more  than  ten  or  twelve 
Indian  families  residing." 

Of  the  others,  some  had  gone  back  to  Orinoco,  others  were 
working  in  Pomeroon  and  Essequibo. 

In  1839  the  Roman  Catholic  Pastor  of  the  Morocco  Mission 
says: 

*'In  the  aforesaid  rivers  [Waini  and  BarimaJ,  all  Roman  Catholics. 
*  *  *  The  captain  of  the  Waycos,  named  Juan  Ventura,  is  a  Spaniard, 
and  himself,  and  almost  all  his  tribe,  are  Roman  Catholics.  In  the  only 
one  creek  of  Bareema  which  I  visited  I  met  the  Catholic  captain  and  most 
of  his  tribe." 

He  adds: 

**  The  population  of  Morocco  Creek  can  be  estimated  at  least  at  600 
adults,  of  both  sexes,  almost  all  Spanish  "  (B.  C.  VI,  64.) 

Postholder  McClintock  reports,  in  December,  1846  (B.  0. 
VI,  146)  that  the  Waramuri  Hill  Mission,  which  had  been  estab- 
lished by  him  at  Moruca,  had  been  for  several  months  past  totally 
neglected. 

In  1847  Postholder  McClintock  reports  (B.  C.  VI,  165)  that 
the  Waramuri  mission  is  no  longer  a  mission,  "  but  once  more 
mingled  with  the  wilds.  The  Indian  cottages  are  abandoned, 
and  all  the  buildings  more  or  less  destroyed  by  wood  ants,  and 
should  the  place  be  undisturbed  by  the  hands  of  man  for  three 
months  longer,  a  stranger  passing  that  way  would  be  at  a  loss 
to  discover  the  spot  on  which  the  once  famed  Waramury  Mis- 
sion stood." 


098  EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1860. 

In  March,  1849,  Superintendent  McClintock  reports  that  the 
Waramuri  Mission  has  been  re-established  (B.  C.  VI,  173). 
He  aiso  says  that  the  Santa  Rosa  Mission  in  1840  had  336  Spanish 
Arawaks,  but  since  then  they  have  gradually  decreased,  not  by 
death,  but  by  return  to  the  Orinoco,  particularly  of  late. 

From  Superintendent  McClintock's  report  of  March  31,  1850,  it 
seems  that  the  missions  at  Pomeroon  and  Moruca  were  then  in  a 
deplorable  condition  (B.  C.  VI,  177-8). 

In  a  report  of  September  30,  1853  (B.  0.  VI,  194),  Superin- 
tendent McClintock  again  refers  to  the  condition  of  the  missions 
on  the  Moruca,  stating  that  the  roof  of  the  Waramuri  church  has 
fallen  in  and  that  another  winter  will  destroy  every  inch  of  it; 
'*  in  other  respects,  the  Mission  has  all  the  appearances  usual  in 
abandonment,  and  the  same  observations  are  applicable  to  the  St. 
Roses  Mission,  for,  although  the  church  is  not  actually  down,  it  is 
not  far  from  it." 

Whatever  the  facts  may  have  been  with  reference  to  Spanish 
Indians,  their  settlement  at  Moruca  has  no  bearing  upon  the 
question  of  the  disputed  boundary. 

It  appears  from  the  above  that  in  the  coast  territory,  as  in  the 
interior,  there  was  no  settlement,  no  post,  no  jurisdiction,  and  no 
control,  west  of  Moruca  by  the  British. 

There  remains  only  one  question  to  consider,  and  that  is  the  con- 
tention on  the  part  of  Her  Majesty's  Government  in  this  case  that 
their  relations  with  the  Indians  of  Barima  (for  there  were  no  re- 
lations with  the  Indians  of  the  interior),  during  this  period,  were  in 
some  way  the  foundation  of  political  control.  The  question  how 
far  such  relations  can  establish  political  control,  has  already  been 
fully  discussed.  It  only  remains  to  be  seen  whether  the  acts  of 
the  British  in  this  respect  changed  in  any  degree  the  situation 
referred  to  in  the  previous  discussion  in  this  argument. 

It  is  contended  in  the  British  Case  that  the  authorities  of 
British  Guiana  were  active  in  the  same  directions  as  their  Dutch 
predecessors,  and  that  by  reason  of  their  maintenance  of  the  peace. 


EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850.  6d^ 

their  employment  of  the  Indians,  the  military  services  which  the 
latter  rendered,  the  presents  which  were  given  them,  the  appoint- 
ment of  chiefs,  and  jurisdiction  of  offenses  committed  by  Indians, 
they  established  a  species  of  political  control  over  the  inhabitants 
of  the  territory. 

During  the  early  part  of  this  period  the  policy  of  the  Dutch  of 
maintaining  their  relations  with  the  Indians  by  the  distribution  of 
gratuities  and  presents,  in  which,  as  before,  rum  was  one  of  the 
largest  items,  and  which  it  is  also  contended  was  an  evidence  of 
political  control,  was  continued  by  the  British  authorities.  The 
immense  number  of  negro  slaves  in  the  British  colony,  which  had 
passed  to  it  from  the  Dutch,  was  a  constant  menace.  In  1813 
Indians  were  employed  for  several  weeks  in  repressing  a  disposi- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  negroes  to  revolt.  These  were  rewarded 
by  a  gratuity  of  3,500  f.  (B.  C.  VI,  4). 

The  cost  of  the  annual  presents  to  the  Indians  was  a  heavy 
burden  upon  the  resources  of  the  colony,  but  the  necessity  of  being 
able  to  hold  in  check  the  negro  slaves  by  fear  of  the  Indians  was 
such  that  the  amount  was  paid  without  a  murmur.  It  was  in  fact 
not  a  tribute  paid  by  the  Indians  for  protection,  but  a  tribute  paid 
to  the  Indians  for  protection,  and  it  justified  Acting  Governor  Codd 
in  making  the  statement  already  quoted  (B.  C.  V,  216),  in  his 
letter  of  September  26,  1813,  to  Earl  Bathurst: 

"  It  is,  however,  obvious  that  our  Colonies  are  tributaries  to  the  Indians, 
whilst  the  proper  system  of  policy  would  be  to  make  them  allies,  looking  to 
us  for  protection;  and  whilst  living  within  our  territories,  affording  them 
such  aid  as  we  might  conceive  they  deserve." 

He  added  the  significant  phrase: 

*'  The  quantity  of  rum  and  sugar  issued  tending  to  render  them  almost 
useless,  for  my  part,  I  think  the  whole  present  Indian  system  requires  to  be 
reconsidered. " 

It  is  evident  that  at  the  date  of  this  letter,  in  1813,  there  was 
no  such  relation  between  the  British  Colonial  authoritities  and  the 
Indians  as  could  be  made  the  foundation  of  a  claim  of  political 
■I  control. 

L 


YOO  EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO.  1850. 

In  the  same  letter  the  Governor  says  that  the  expenses  con- 
nected with  the  Indians  amounted  in  1811  to  £6,904  and  in  1812 
to  £5,112. 

In  view  of  the  extremely  sound  conclusions  which  the  British 
Colonial  Governor  draws  from  the  fact  of  the  subsidy,  it  is  curious 
that  the  British  Case  should  dwell  upon  it  as  an  evidence  of  pol- 
itical control.     It  states  (p.  105): 

"The  expenses  of  the  Indian  subsidy  which  was  annually  voted 
was  considerable.  In  Ibll  the  Governor  undertook  to  contribute  38,000 
guilders  and  the  Court  of  Policy  13,000  guilders  of  the  probable  cost,  and 
in  November  1812,  while  not  limiting  the  amount  to  any  specific  sum,  the 
Court  of  Policy  were  recommended  to,  as  far  as  possible,  restrict  the  ex- 
penditure under  this  head  to  a  sum  not  exceeding  20,000  guilders  per 
annum.  By  the  year  1H31,  annual  sums  were  still  voted  for  the  rations  and 
gratuities  given  to  Indians  at  the  Posts,  and  the  general  distribution  of 
presents  had  become  triennial.  The  expense  in  every  four  years  was  es- 
timated to  be  £6,600.  In  1833  the  general  distribution  was  omitted,  and 
the  Court  of  Policy  voted  a  sum  of  30,000  guilders  for  the  purpose  in  the 
following  year." 

On  August  1,  1834,  the  emancipation  of  the  ne^ro  slaves  took, 
place.  Those  in  Pomeroon  took  the  proclamation  quietly,  and 
agreed  to  do  nearly  the  same  work  as  formerly  (B.  C.  VI,  56). 

All  danger  of  a  negro  revolt  now  came  to  an  end,  and  the 
practice  of  giving  presents  to  the  Indians  immediately  ceased. 

The  effect  of  this  became  speedily  apparent.  The  British  Case 
states  (p.  105): 

"  In  1837  the  Court  of  Policy  decided  that  it  would  no  longer  defray 
the  cost  of  the  distribution  of  presents  by  the  Postholders,  and  in  lt>38 
Governor  Light  spoke  of  the  Indian  subsidy  as  entirely  discontinued.  In 
consequence  of  this  by  the  following  year  no  Indians  were  to  be  found 
residing  at  the  Posts  who  could  be  considered  as  attached  to  them." 

Hadfield,  Superintendent  of  Rivers  and  Creeks,  in  a  report 
dated  October  26,  1839,  says: 

"  It  may,  however,  be  not  remiss  to  remark  that,  previous  to  the 
enactment  of  the  Ordinance  appointing  Superintendents  of  Rivers  and 
Creeks,  the  Indians  who  chose  to  reside  at  the  Posts  were  supplied  with 


EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850.  tOl 

plantains,  salt  fish,  rum,  &c.,  and  presents  of  small  articles,  such  as  gun- 
powder, kniyes,  looking-glasses,  beads,  combs,  &c.,  were  periodically 
distributed  amongst  all  the  Indians  that  chose  to  assemble  at  the  Posts  on 
such  occasions,  which  induced  many  of  them  to  attach  themselves  to  the 
Posts,  or  locate  in  the  vicinity,  whose  services  could  be  obtained  at  an 
easy  rate  by  the  Postholders,  as  well  for  the  purpose  of  conveying  them 
from  place  to  place,  as  the  erecting  and  repairing  of  buildings.  But  now 
no  such  encouragement  is  given  them,  and  the  consequence  is  that  not  an 
Indian  is  to  be  found  at  any  of  the  Posts  who  may  be  considered  as 
attached  thereto  "  (B.  C.  VI,  87). 

The  Essequibo  settlement  shortly  began  to  feel  the  effects  of 
emancipation  on  the  labor  problem  and  on  the  Indian  question. 
Postholder  McClintock,  in  a  report  of  that  year  (B.  C.  VI,  141) 
comments  on  "the  general  indisposition  that  prevails  among  all 
classes  on  the  sugar  estates  of  the  Arabian  Coast,"  and  mentions 
the  fact  that  the  Accaways  of  Waini  and  Barima  have  destroyed 
their  habitations  and  gone  to  reside  in  the  upper  parts  of  the 
Cuyuni  and  Massaruni,  doubtless  still  preserving  in  their  Creole 
Dutch  vocabulary  the  recollection  of  the  "rum,  gunpowder,  &c.," 
with  which  they  were  formerly  suppled  at  the  Post. 

The  necessity  of  obtaining  labor  led  the  colonists  to  turn  to 
the  Indians,  and  few  of  these  being  left  about  the  post  at  Moruca, 
they  employed  all  those  w^ho  came  to  them  for  employment  from 
remoter  districts.  These  Indians,  many  of  whom  lived  about  the 
Barima  and  its  tributaries,  did  not  give  up  their  homes  and  settle 
in  the  neighborhood  of  the  plantations  where  they  worked  or  at 
the  post  of  Pomeroon,  but  they  came  for  short  periods  of  time, 
and  v^hen  the  work  was  over  returned  to  their  homes.  The 
colonists  took  advantage  of  their  ignorance  to  bind  them  by 
oppressive  contracts  and  to  get  the  better  of  them  by  the  quality 
of  the  goods  in  which  the  services  were  paid.  To  correct  these 
difficulties,  regulations  were  framed  by  the  Colonial  authorities  to 

I  the  effect  that  the  Indians  "  could  not  be  forced  from  their  homes 
by  any  person  or  persons  from  Pomeroon  to  work  as  labourers  with- 
out their  own  free  will  and  consent,  and  that  if  they  were  ill-used 
! 


702  EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850. 

or  paid  less  than  they  might  have  agreed  for,  they  must  make 
their  complaints  known  to  me  [the  Superintendent  of  Rivers  and 
Creeks]  upon  my  arrival  in  the  river  [Pomeroon],  when  their  case 
would  be  attended  to "  (B.  C.  VT,  71).  With  the  object  of 
carrying  out  these  regulations,  the  Superintendent  of  Rivers  and 
Creeks  went  to  Pomeroon  to  hear  complaints;  not  only  that,  but 
he  extended  his  journeys  into  the  territory  west  of  the  Pomeroon 
and  visited  among  the  Indians,  inviting  them  to  make  any  com- 
plaint they  desired  of  the  settlers  by  whom  they  had  been 
employed  (B.  C.  VI,  65-75,  94-99). 

The  practice  of  making  these  visits  was  continued  only  for 
two  or  three  years,  and  seems  finally  to  have  come  to  an  end  in 
1844,  when  McClintock  made  his  last  journey  in  the  district. 

Even  the  Colonial  officers  were  charged  with  gross  injustice  in 
the  matter.    Superintendent  King  reported  in  1840  (B.  C.  VI,  97): 

"  Several  Warrow  Indians  complained  that  they  were  greatly  imposed 
upon  by  the  people  at  Pomeroon  by  making  them  work  for  them,  saying 
that  the  Governor  or  Superintendent  sent  for  them,  and  that  when  they 
went  out  they  made  them  work." 

This  is  in  line  with  the  statement  of  Hilhouse,  the  Quarter- 
master-General of  Indians,  in  November,  1823  (B.  C.  VI,  24): 

"  The  Indians  employed  have  had  their  payment  withheld  till  they  are 
exceedingly  dissatisfied,  and  the  faith  of  Government  sacrificed  to  the 
inactivity  of  individuals." 

That  the  officials  of  British  Guiana  might  be  found  accusing 
the  Spanish  of  ill-treating  the  Indians  would  not  be  surprising, 
and  their  statements  based  on  the  reports  of  Indians  on  that 
subject  are  of  course  hardly  admissible  as  evidence.  But  these 
last  statements  are  admissions  against  interest,  made  by  these 
officials  themselves,  and  offered  in  evidence  in  support  of  the 
British  Case.  They  throw  a  curious  light  upon  the  allegation 
made  in  the  Case  itself  (p.  108)  that  *♦  any  attempt  to  compel  the 
Indians  to  enforced  labor,  under  any  pretext  whatever,  was 
sternly  checked." 


EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850.  Y03 

The  number  of  Indians  so  employed  does  not  seem  to  have 
been  very  large.  Superintendent  McClintock  reports  June  30, 
J  850  (B.  C.  VI,  181),  that  out  of  4,000  Indians  in  Bai-iraa  and 
Waini,  "  100,  and  no  more,  is  about  the  average  that  repair  to  the 
sugar  estates  in  search  of  work." 

No  conclusion  can  certainly  be  drawn  from  the  above  facts  as 
to  the  maintenance  of  political  control,  except  that  perhaps  they 
may  account  further  for  the  use  of  the  Creole-Dutch  language 
in  Barima,  which  the  British  Case  seems  to  contend  is  an 
evidence  of  such  control.  The  fact  that  planters  hired  the 
Indians  to  work,  and  that  when  they  ill  treated  the  Indians 
and  failed  to  pay  them  their  wages  or  paid  them  in  inferior 
goods,  the  Colonial  authorities  took  cognizance  of  the  fact  and 
compelled  the  planters  to  live  up  to  their  contracts,  is  not  an 
exercise  of  control  over  Indians.  Any  Spaniard  living  in 
Angostura  or  in  Caracas,  any  foreigner  in  short,  might  have 
worked  for  the  planters  on  the  same  terms  and  had  the  same 
privilege  of  a  judicial  cognizance  of  his  complaint.  The  fact  that 
the  Colonial  authorities  afforded  through  their  courts  a  remedy  in 
such  disputes  is  no  evidence  of  control  over  the  Indians  any  more 
than  the  mere  fact  of  employment  is  an  evidence  of  such 
control. 

The  mode  of  treatment  of  the  Indians  by  the  Dutch  and  by  the 
British,  following  the  Dutch  example,  during  the  first  half  of  the 
century  is  in  strong  contrast  to  that  adopted  by  the  Spanish,  and 
numerous  citations  may  be  made  from  the  evidence  to  show  this 
difference,  entirely  on  the  authority  of  Enghsh  official  observers. 

Quartermaster-General  Hilhouse  describes  the  great  influence 
which  the  Spanish  missions  had  had  upon  the  Indians,  showing 
that  it  had  accomphshed  what  Dutch  influence  had  entirely  failed 
to  accomplish.     He  says  (B.  C.  VI,  33): 

"  The  Jesuits  of  the  Missions,  prior  to  the  political  disturbances  in  that 
quarter,  had  brought  them  to  such  a  state  of  comparative  discipline  and 
civilization  as  even  to  reclaim   them  from  their  natural  propensities  as 


704  EVENTS  m  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850. 

hunters,  and  induce  them  to  cultivate  the  soil.  The  superior  cultivation 
of  the  refugee  Spanish  Indians  in  the  Morocco  Creek  is  a  proof  of  this. 

"  Their  capacity  for  discipline  was  such  that  they  acted  in  regular 
bodies  in  support  of  the  regular  troops  in  the  cause  of  the  Royalists,  and 
their  attachment  to  the  Government  was  such  that,  on  the  breaking  out  of 
the  trouble,  great  numbers  emigrated  rather  than  acknowledge  the  growing 
ascendancy  of  the  patriots." 

Mr.  Hilhouse  had  been  Quarter  master- General  of  the  Indians, 
and  probably  knew  as  much  about  them  as  anybody  else  in  the 
colony.  He  says,  in  1834  (B.  C.  VI,  52),  in  describing  the  In- 
dians who  came  from  the  Spanish  missions: 

"  To  the  credit  of  these  people  be  it  spoken  that  for  twelve  or  fifteen 
years,  the  period  of  their  first  emigration,  I  have  not  heard  of  a  single 
instance  of  those  disgraceful  atrocities  that  daily  characterize  the  Colonial 
tribes,  notwithstanding  the  Post  of  Pomeroon  has  been  til)  within  the  last 
few  months  conducted  to  my  certain  knowledge  with  a  laxity  of  probity 
and  discipline,  disgraceful  to  the  Colony  and  enough  to  corrupt  the  morals 
of  all  within  its  influence. 

"  Of  the  Arawaaks  and  other  tribes  in  the  district  of  the  Pomeroon  Post 
I  can  only  say  that  the  last  ten  or  twelve  years  has  reduced  them  to  a  state 
of  mental  and  physical  degradation  which  has  no  parallel  in  any  other 
European  possession. 

"  The  task  of  civilization  if  not  utterly  hopeless  must  be  very  slow  with 
them." 

This  painful  contrast  betw^een  the  effects  of  Spanish  and  Brit- 
ish influence  over  the  Indians,  is  a  part  of  the  evidence  adduced 
by  the  British  Case. 

The  quarterly  return  of  the  Postholder  of  Pomeroon,  dated 
September  80,  1833  (B.  C.  VI,  50),  shows  the  movements  of  In- 
dians about  the  post.  It  also  indicates  the  prevailing  source  of 
demoralization.  The  usual  memorandum  with  reference  to  the 
Indians  calling  at  the  post  is  that  they  received  "refreshment." 
*•  On  one  day  six  Indians  left  the  post  on  leave  for  the  recovery  of 
their  health."  It  is  to  be  supposed  that  these  matters  are  put  in 
evidence  as  proof  of  political  control.  Certainly  if  rum  could  bring 
it  about,  all  that  the  Dutch  left  to  be  accomplished  in  the  way  of 
political  coiitrol  was  completed  by  the  British— at  least  as  to  the 


EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850.  706 

Indians  that  hung  about  the  posts  until  they  were  obliged  to 
leave  "for  the  recovery  of  their  health." 

Superintendent  McClintock,  in  a  report  of  September  30,  1850 
(B.  C.  VI,  184-5),  discloses  with  conclusive  sharpness  the  source 
of  the  influence  of  the  English  upon  the  Indians.  He  says  that 
during  the  days  of  slavery  the  population  of  the  colony  considered 
it  necessary  to  gain,  no  matter  how,  the  affections  or  good  wishes 
of  the  Indians,  "which,  to  a  considerable  extent,  was  accom- 
plished by  an  annual  distribution  of  presents;  but  the  free  use  of 
rum  to  them  who  called  at  the  respective  posts  cemented  still 
tighter  the  bonds  of  friendship." 

'*  This  authorized  system  of  demoralization,  if  he  may  be  allowed  to  call 
it  by  that  name,  that  is  to  say,  the  unlimited  distribution  of  rum,  was 
practised  at  every  Indian  post  throughout  the  province,  and,  in  a  manner 
recognized  as  one  of  the  then  laws  of  the  land,  in  which  light  it  was  con- 
tinued to  be  viewed  until  freedom  to  the  Blacks  was  proclaimed;  but  no 
sooner  had  this  magnanimous  boon  been  granted  (which  in  one  respect  was 
(•([ually  beneficial  to  the  poor  Indian,  for  the  then  deleterious  system  of 
iriving  them  rum  ceased),  than  those  very  people  (the  Indians)  were,  but  in 
an  indirect  way,  cast  off,  the  Whites  telHngthera:  We  no  longer  require 
your  assistance,  no  more  presents  will  be  given,  no  more  rations  of  fish, 
plantains,  &c.,  issued,  in  a  word,  the  negroes  are  free,  and  you  can  with- 
draw from  the  posts  and  return  again  to  the  wilds." 

In  connection  with  the  above  statement  of  Superintendent 
McClintock,  a  faithful  official,  than  whom  no  one  had  better 
means  of  knowing  the  relations  of  the  Colony  with  the  Indians,  it 
is  beautiful  to  read  the  statement  of  Mr.  Schomburgk,  made  in  his 
letter  of  October  23,  1841  (B.  C.  VII,  33),  in  answer  to  Gov- 
ernor  Light's  inquiry  "upon  what  grounds  I  claimed,  in  Her 
Britannic  Majesty's  name,  the  right  of  possession  of  the  River 
Barima  and  the  eastern  bank  of  the  River  Amacuraas  the  western 
boundary."     He  said: 

"  Great  Britain  has  been  partly  actuated  by  philanthropical  motives  to 
see  the  boundaries  of  British  Guiana  determined,  in  order  to  afford  protec- 
tion to  such  of  the  Indian  tribes  as  live  within  her  boundary,  and  the  com- 
paratively few  who  remain  of  that  interesting  portion  of  her  subjects  look 


706  EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850. 

with  the  greatest  expectation  for  the  moment  when   they  may  consider 
themselves  secure  against  the  arbitrary  measures  of  unprincipled  men." 

Mr.  McClintock's  objection  in  isn  (B.  C.  VI,  212)  to  Venezuelan 
occupation  was  less  philanthropic: 

**To  say  what  would  be  the  result  in  case  the  Spanish  obtained  a  foot- 
ing in  Marucca  is  easily  stated.  Rum  and  other  spirits  would  be  intro- 
duced from  the  Orouoko  in  large  quantities.  Ketail  spirit  shops  would 
be  established  at  the  month  of  Marucca  and  at  other  places,  which  would 
interfere  very  materially  with  the  revenue  at  present  derived  from  that 
source." 

The  objection  here  is  not  to  Venezuelan  practices,  but  to  the 
effects  of  commercial  competition  upon  similar  British  practices. 

Two  other  quotations  may  be  given,  one  referring  to  an  earlier, 
the  other  to  a  later  period.  The  first,  made  by  Hilhouse  in  a  report 
of  1834,  advocating  the  abolition  of  all  the  posts  except  that  of 
Pomeroon,  the  retention  of  which  he  advised  on  the  ground  that 
it  was  a  frontier  post,  predicted  the  results  to  the  Indians  of  the 
policy  then  pureued  by  the  Colony.     He  said  (B.  C.  VI,  53): 

"Beyond  this  the  experience  of  seventeen  years  and  a  most  intimate  ac- 
(|uaintance  with  the  Indians,  under  every  circumstance,  public  or  domestic, 
convinces  me  that  all  the  other  Posts  are  decided  public  nuisances;  extra 
agencies  without  an  object,  except  the  annihilation  of  the  Indians  be  such. 
I  would  recommend  their  immediate  abolition,  the  nearest  Burgher  Captain 
being  substituted  in  their  charge  as  Protector,  since  as  long  as  they  are 
kept  up  all  attempts  at  civilization  must  necessarily  fail." 

The  second  citation  is  from  an  equally  good  authority,  Mr, 
McTurk,  and  of  a  comparatively  recent  date,  namely,  1893.  It 
contains  the  fulfilment  of  Hilhouse's  prediction.  Mr.  McTurk 
says  (B.  C.  VII,  333): 

"  The  Indian  population  of  the  lower  part  of  this  district  is  dying  out 
faat," 

And  he  adds: 

"  The  primary  cause  of  the  great  increase  in  the  mortality  among  the 
Indians  has  been  the  liquor  traflSc  at  Bartica,"— 

a  traffic  conducted  immediately   under  the  vigilant  eye  of  Mr. 


EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850.  707 

McTurk  himself,  whose  official  residence,  Kalacoon,  was  on  Bar- 
tica  Point. 

In  reference  to  maintenance  of  the  peace,  the  Indians  appear 
to  have  been  so  thoroughly  demoralized  by  their  contact  with  the 
Dutch  and  British  settlements  that  they  showed  very  little  further 
disposition  to  engage  in  wars.  Upon  one  occasion  hostilities  were 
threatened  between  two  tribes  (B.  C.  VI,  37),  and  the  British 
Postholder  succeeded  in  bringing  about  a  reconciliation.  There  is 
nothing,  however,  to  show  that  this  was  in  any  respect  an  exer- 
cise of  control  or  other  than  a  purely  voluntary  arbitration. 

There  does  not  appear  to  have  been  any  employment  of  the 
Indians  for  military  purposes  after  1814. 

Much  is  said  about  so-called  Enrolments  of  Indians.  These 
were  simply  memoranda  that  were  kept  by  the  Postholders  on  the 
frontier  of  the  tribes  in  the  neighborhood.  Several  of  them  are 
given  in  the  testimony  annexed  to  the  British  Case  (for  example, 
B.  C.  VI,  12-3).  Nearly  all  of  these  were  Indians  who  lived 
on  the  Essequibo  or  on  the  Cuyuni  and  Massaruni  rivers 
below  the  falls,  as  is  shown  by  the  short  distance  from  the  Mas- 
saruni post  at  the  mouth  of  the  river.  Another  group  is  credited 
to  Cuyuni  and  Massaruni  and  at  a  sufficient  distance  to  indicate 
that  they  were  beyond  the  falls;  but  the  note  in  reference  to  these 
is  as  follows: 

''These  people  are  in  general  a  trading  and  wandering  tribe.  They  go 
eveiy  year  to  the  Spanish  Savannah  and  Settlements ;  to  the  Macusse  and 
Adray  nations  as  soon  as  their  cultivation  grounds  are  prepared  and 
planted." 

The  memorandum  and  its  accompanying  entry  would  seem  to 
imply  that  the  relation  of  these  nomadic  tribes  was  much  closer 
to  the  Spaniards  than  to  the  British,  yet  it  is  an  entry  on  a  so- 
called  "  Enrolment"  of  Indians. 

As  to  military  service,  Hilhouse  stated  in  his  testimony  at  the 
trial  of  Billy  William  (B.  C.  VI,  41),  that   a  treaty  had  been 


708  EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850. 

made  by  the  Colony  with  the  Arrowacks,  Wariows  and  Caribs, 
and  he  added: 

"I  have  only  understood  the  Treaty  to  be  as  retaining  them  as  soldiers 
in  the  defence  of  the  Colony,  that  they  obey  all  calls  of  the  Colony  for 
service,  in  consequence  of  which  an  allowance  is  made  every  three  years 
which  they  consider  as  a  retaining  fee.  I  think  it  is  the  only  tie — they  look 
on  it  as  subjecting  them  to  serve  when  called  on  solely  as  allies.  There  is 
no  clause  I  have  heard  of  calling  on  them  to  submit  to  the  laws  in  other 
respects." 

There  was  no  restraint  upon  the  movements  of  the  Indians. 
They  moved  about  in  or  out  of  the  district  as  they  pleased.  Thus, 
in  1845,  Postholder  McClintock  reports  a  general  movement  of 
Accaway  Indians  from  the  coast  district  of  Barama  to  the  Cuyuni 
(B.  C.  VI,  142.) 

Great  stress  io  laid  upon  a  supposed  jurisdiction  exercised  by  the 
British  over  the  Indians  in  civil  and  criminal  matters.  In  regard 
to  this  we  have  a  very  important  statement,  made  as  late  as  1831 
by  one  who  surely  should  have  known,  as  he  was  a  ''  Protector 
of  Indians,"  and  had  been  for  forty  years  in  the  Colony. 

This  was  Van  Ryck  de  Groot,  who  testified  at  the  trial  of 
Billy  William,  as  to  the  scope  of  his  duties.  He  says  (B.  C. 
VI,  41): 

'*  If  an  Indian  made  a  complaint  to  me  I  should  act  as  a  mediator,  not 
as  a  Magistrate.  If  the  injuring  party  did  not  choose  to  appear,  I  should 
not  feel  myself  authorized  to  compel  him  to  do  so.  In  their  quarrels  I 
should  consider  that  1  had  nothing  to  do  unless  they  called  on  me  as 
mediator;  there  is  no  order  not  to  interfere,  nor  the  contrary;  on  a  grant 
the  grantee  is  ordered  not  to  molest  the  Indians,  but  to  cultivate  friend- 
ehip.  I  give  presents  in  the  name  of  the  Governor  to  the  Indians,  they  are 
»  retaining  fee  for  their  fidelity  and  friendship,  the  presents  are  not  ever 
wilfully  neglected,  they  may  be  withheld  by  accident,  the  Indians  consider 
them  as  presents  to  them  as  friends  and  allies,  not  as  subjects.  I  do  not 
know  they  have  any  mode  of  recording  events  or  any  substitute  for  writing ; 
any  compact  between  them  and  us  is  oral  only." 

The  above  statement  shows  clearly  the  nature  of  the  so- 
called    •' jurisdiction"    of    Biitish  Colonial  officials  in   disputes 


EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850.  709 

of  Indians.  The  occasions  on  which  any  such  settlement  of  dis- 
putes is  referred  to  are  very  few  in  number.  There  was  nothing 
in  the  nature  of  a  court  or  process  in  connection  with  these  set- 
tlements. As  indicated  by  De  Groot,  they  were  cases  of  volun- 
tary submission  to  arbitration.  This  seems  to  be  admitted  by  the 
British  Case,  which  says  (p.  101): 

"  In  all  matters  of  complaint  by  Indians  they  acted  as  mediators  in  the 
first  instance,  but  where  mediation  was  improper  it  was  their  duty  to  use 
every  legal  means  on  behalf  of  the  complainant  to  procure  for  him  ade- 
quate redress,  if  necessary  bringing  the  facts  of  the  case  to  the  notice  of 
the  legal  authorities  of  the  Colony." 

This  statement  is  so  guarded  that  it  is  difficult  to  infer  from  it 
any  allegation  as  to  a  prevailing  practice.  No  case  is  referred  to 
by  the  text  except  the  very  case  we  have  just  cited,  that  of  Billy 
William,  which  was  not  a  case  in  point,  as  both  the  locus  of  the 
crime  and  the  fact  that  the  Indian  was  a  resident  of  the  colony 
brought  the  case  within  the  criminal  jurisdiction  of  the  Colonial 
court.  The  question  is  not  so  much  what  the  duty  of  the  Pro- 
tectors was  •'  where  mediation  was  improper"  as  what  they  did, 
and  what  the  legal  authorities  of  the  colony  did  when  the  matter 
was  brought  to  their  attention.  As  to  this,  nothing  whatever  is 
said. 

The  British  Case  goes  on  to  say  that  in  cases  ot  Indian  mur- 
derers who  had  laid  themselves  open  to  the  application  of  the  In- 
dian law  of  blood  revenge,  in  some  instances  "  the  parties  to  the 
vendetta  submitted  their  feud  to  the  Protector's  or  Postholder's 
arbitration."  This,  again,  is  simply  a  voluntary  submission  of  a 
dispute  to  the  mediation  of  a  third  party,  and  indicates  nothing 
whatever  as  to  the  existence  and  exercise  of  civil  or  criminal 
jurisdiction. 

The  case  of  Manoel  has  already  been  alluded  to.  Superin- 
tendent Crichton  in  1839  was  making  a  journey  in  the  Barima, 
apparently   with   the  object  of  receiving  Indian   complaints  of 

Ippression  on   the   part  of  settlers  who  had  employed  them  at 


710  EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  PROM  1814  TO  1850. 

Esseqiiibo  (B.  C.  VT,  65-75).  On  his  way  to  Onoboe,  an 
Indian  settlement  on  the  Barima,  he  was  met  by  three  Indians, 
who  were  in  search  of  him  to  come  and  settle  a  dispute,  which 
they  were  afraid  would  end  in  blood.  This  was  the  case  of 
Manoel.  The  charge  against  Manoel  was  that  he  had  forcibly  dis- 
possessed another  Indian  of  his  land,  and  Crichton  gave  an  opinion 
that  Manoel  should  give  up  the  land  to  the  owner.  With  this 
decision  the  accused  seemed  perfectly  satisfied;  in  fact,  as  far  as 
appears,  Crichton  was  acting  in  the  position  of  mediator,  the 
attitude  which  De  Groot  had  stated,  only  a  few  years  before,  that 
he  habitually  assumed  in  disputes  between  Indians.  The  Indians 
of  the  village,  however,  were  dissatisfied  that  Manoel  was  not 
ordered  to  move  out  at  once,  and  made  an  accusation  against  him 
of  having  killed  his  wife.  It  was  upon  this  occasion  that  Crichton 
made  the  singular  remark  that  "finding  that  this  unfortunate 
transaction  had  taken  place  *  *  *  on  the  left  bank  of  the 
Barima  River,  where  the  Government  has  never  claimed  jurisdic- 
tion, I  felt  the  difficulty  of  taking  a  decided  step  in  the  matter, 
and  endeavored  to  restore  peace  among  them  by  reason  and  per- 
suasion first  and  then  threats,  and  imagined  that  I  had  succeeded." 
Starting  upon  his  return,  however,  he  received  word  that  Manoel 
had  threatened  to  kill  his  accusers,  and  he  accordingly  took  him 
away  with  him.  Two  months  later  he  took  Manoel  back  to 
Onoboe  (B.  C.  VI,  T8).  No  statement  is  made  as  to  proceed- 
ings on  the  part  of  the  Colonial  authorities  in  this  case,  and  it 
would  appear  that  the  Colonial  Government  decided  that  the  case 
did  not  fall  within  their  jurisdiction. 

The  cases  of  Pauli  and  Maul,  upon  which  great  stress  appears 
to  be  laid  in  the  British  Case  (pp.  102-3),  are  in  no  sense  an  evidence 
of  control  over  the  Indians.  Both  Pauli  and  Maul,  against 
whom  the  proceedings  were  taken,  were  Essequibo  colonists, 
and  even  if  the  proceedings  had  not  been  abortive,  as  they 
were,  it  would  have  been  nothing  more  than  an  exercise  of  per- 
sonal jurisdiction  in  a  case  of  oppressive  treatment  of  Indians  bv 


EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850.  til 

the  colonists.  All  that  the  Superintendent  of  Rivers  and  Creeks 
did  in  the  matter  was  to  get  together  the  evidence  to  support  the 
prosecution,  in  which  he  does  not  seem  to  have  been  very  suc- 
cessful. Both  Pauli  and  Maul  were  arrested  within  the  territories 
of  Essequibo,  one  at  Moruca  and  the  other  at  Spring  Garden,  near 
Supenaam  (B.  C.  VI,  99). 

The  trial  would  seem  to  have  been  somewhat  of  a  farce,  the 
Crown  electing  not  to  proceed  on  one  indictment  and  the  defend- 
ant being  acquitted  on  the  other,  as  the  Indian  witnesses  were 
not  allowed  to  testify,  "on  the  ground  of  their  possessing  no 
religious  belief"  (B.  C,  p.  103). 

A  court  which  rejected  the  evidence  of  Indians  against  white 
men  as  incompetent  could  not  be  said  to  afford  a  very  val- 
uable remedy  in  cases  of  wrongs  done  to  Indians  by  whites. 
Nor  could  it  be  said  that  a  claim  of  political  control  was  estab- 
lished by  reason  of  the  affording  of  such  "protection"  as  this  to 
to  the  Indians. 

Even  if  Maul  had  not  been  acquitted,  the  case  would  have  been 
inconclusive,  as  it  is  stated  in  the  British  Case  (p.  103)  that  "  no 
objection  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court  was  raised  at  any  stage 
of  the  proceedings."  The  important  question,  therefore,  as  to 
whether  or  not  the  jurisdiction  extended  over  a  crime  committed 
in  Bariraa  was  never  raised. 

Superintendent  King's  report  for  the  quarter  ending  December 
31,  1840  (B.  C.  VI,  100-2)  states  that  in  November  he  was  at 
the  Pomeroon,  and  that  "  there  were  no  Indians  working  for  any 
of  the  inhabitants  of  the  Pomeroon  on  account  of  the  way  Pauli 
and  Maul  had  acted  towards  them,  and  they  said  they  would  not 
work  until  they  saw^  how  the  case  was  settled." 

If  the  Indians  were  waiting  for  a  satisfactory  termination  of 
the  trial  before  again  beginning  work  in  Pomeroon,  they  must 
have  waited  for  a  long  time. 

The  case  of  Billy  William  is  also  without  significance.  Billy 
William  was  an  Indian  whose  name  would  seem  to  imply  that  he 


1-12  EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1860. 

lived  at  or  near  the  British  settlements.  His  case  is  stated  at 
length  in  the  evidence  (B.  C.  VI,  40),  from  v^rhich  it  appears 
that  the  murder  with  which  he  was  charged  was  committed  on 
the  Essequibo,  and  that  William  himself  went  to  the  Protector  of 
Indians  of  the  district  in  which  he  lived  and  gave  himself  up 
(B.  C.  VI,  44). 

The  case  is  evidently  not  one  of  jurisdiction  over  the  territory 
in  dispute.  The  most  important  point  to  be  mentioned  with  refer- 
ence to  it  is  the  testimony  of  Hilhouse,  the  Quartermaster-General 
of  Indians  (B.  C.  VI,  40),  who  made  a  remarkable  statement 
which  throws  considerable  light  upon  the  extent  to  which  the 
British  criminal  law  was  applied  to  the  Indians  in  1831.  Speak- 
ing of  the  Indians,  he  said: 

"I  am  partially  acquainted  with  their  language,  with  their  manners  and 
customs  perfectly.  They  have  customs,  but  no  code  of  laws,  but  have  the 
lextalionis'm  all  the  tribes;  on  almost  all  occasions  they  exercise  the  lex 
ialionis  when  a  white  mediation  does  not  step  in  to  buy  off  the  murder  by 
a  pecuniary  consideration.  .  .  .  There  is  scarcely  a  family  of  Indians 
in  the  Colony  in  which  an  instance  of  this  retaliation  has  not  occurred." 

If  this  were  true  of  Indians  in  the  colony,  what  must  have 
been  the  situation  as  to  Indians  outside  of  the  colony,  in  the  ter- 
ritory now  in  question? 

Every  case  of  the  exercise  of  British  criminal  jurisdiction  is 
cited,  or  may  be  presumed  to  have  been  cited,  in  the  Appendix  to 
the  British  Case.  They  do  not  number  half  a  dozen,  and  in  each 
one  of  them  there  is  some  specific  fact  as  to  the  locus  of  the  crime 
or  residence  of  the  offender,  which  makes  the  jurisdiction  of  no 
significance  so  far  as  the  question  of  political  control  is  concerned. 
If  there  had  been  others,  they  would  have  been  cited.  We  may, 
therefore,  assume  that  these  were  all.  Nevertheless,  Hilhouse,  the 
the  Quartermaster  General  of  the  Indians,  who  probably  knew 
more  about  it  than  any  hving  person,  who  had  been  Quarter- 
master-General eight  years  before,  speaking  as  late  as  1831,  at  a 
time  when  the  British  had  been  in  control  of  the  colony  for 


EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850.  71?. 

twenty-eight  years,  said  that  there  was  not  an   Indian  family  in 
j  the  colony  where  there  was  not  an  instance  of  the  application  of  the 
law  of  retaliation  and  blood  revenge.     Continuing  his  testimony 
in  the  Colonial  Court  room,  he  made  this  grim  statement : 


••  If  prisoner  was  acquitted  I  do  not  think  the  Indians  would  spare  this 
man  unless  the  Governor  or  some  other  person  arranged  compensation  for 
the  death  of  this  woman  ;  otherwise  the  avenger  of  her  death  is  now  in  this 
room." 

In  view  of  the  above,  how  idle  it  is  to  talk  about  criminal 
jurisdiction  over  wandering  tribes  of  Indians,  neither  named  or 
numbered,  unidentified  by  the  Colonial  authorities,  never  coming 
in  contact  with  the  Colonial  authorities,  and  inhabitatiug,  when 
they  inhabited  any  particular  place,  a  territory  stretching  over  a 
space  of  two  hundred  miles  from  the  outside  plantation  of  the 
colony,  and  to  cite  as  proof  of  such  jurisdiction  a  journey  made 
by  Mr.  Crichton  and  another  made  by  Mr.  King,  who  were 
hunting  up  complaints  against  Essequibo  employers  of  Indian 
labor,  and  in  one  or  two  trivial  disputes  acted  as  voluntary 
mediators  between  the  parties.  In  this  very  colony,  British 
criminal  law  was  so  little  applied  to  Indians  within  the  limits  of 
the  settlements  themselves  that  Mr.  Hilhouse  could  say  that 
j  there  was  not  an  Indian  family  in  the  colony  where  a  murder 
I  had  not  been  committed  and  privately  avenged,  and  in  giving 
his  testimony  in  court  at  the  trial  of  an  Indian  for  the  murder  of 
his  wife,  could  make  the  horrible  statement  that  if  the  prisoner 
were  acquitted,  "  the  avenger  of  her  death  is  now  in  this  room." 
The  last  journey  of  the  kind  referred  to  was  that  taken  by 
Superintendent  McClintock,  December  31,  1844,  when  he  went 
to  the  Barama  to  act  as  arbitrator  in  a  dispute  which  he  heard  had 
taken  place  between  certain  Indians.  He  travelled  three  hundred 
miles  and  was  gone  about  two  weeks,  but  took  no  action  when  he 
investigated  the  affair  (B.  C.  VI,  134-6).  He  does  not  even  tell 
why  no  action  was  taken. 
The  case  of  Frederick,  an  Indian  charged  with  murder,  which 


714  EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850. 

was  tried  in  the  Colonial  Couit  February  13,  1832,  has  no  signifi- 
cance, as  the  Indian,  Frederick,  resided  in  Essequibo,  and  the 
crime  was  committed  in  Essequibo,  as  is  shown  by  the  evidence 

(B.  C.  VL  47). 

In  reference  to  the  so-called  "  Appointment  of  Indian  Chiefs," 
to  which  extensive  reference  is  made  in  the  British  Case,  no  prac- 
tice seems  to  have  prevailed  as  early  as  1850  of  making  such 
appointments  otherwise  than  as  a  mere  recognition  of  a  previous 
selection  made  by  the  Indians. 

In  1823  Hilhouse  writes  to  the  Governor  with  reference  to  the 
appointment  of  chiefs  (B.  C.  VI,  34): 

**  I  have  also  to  request,  on  the  part  of  the  Indians  generally,  that  your 
Excellency  will  be  pleased  to  prohibit  all  interference  of  the  whites  in  the 
nominatiou  of  their  Captains,  as  different  individuals  have  in  many 
instances  taken  upon  themselves  this  right,  which  is  purely  elective  on  the 
part  of  the  Indians  themselves,  and  thereby  given  rise  to  great  discontent 
and  family  animosities." 

Timmerman,  Protector  of  the  Indians,  states,  in  a  letter  to  the 
Governor  of  Essequibo,  January  26,  1833: 

"  The  Indian  Captains,  which  Mr.  Hilhouse  asserts  to  be  appointed  by 
the  Postholders,  are  diametrically  opposed  to  the  fact,  at  all  events  in  the 
Pomeroon  district,  where  no  deviation  has  been  practiced  contrary  to  the 
ancient  established  custom  of  leaving  the  choice  of  their  Captains  to  the 
tribes  themselves  (whenever  a  vacancy  occurs)  '*  (B.  C.  VI,  49). 

The  practice  of  giving  an  appointment  or  commission  as  a 
Captain  to  chiefs  of  the  Indians  appears  to  have  begun  about 
1884,  in  which  year  Captain  Juan,  who  was  already  Chief  of  the 
Spanish  Indians  who  had  settled  in  Moruca,  was  appointed  Cap- 
tain (B.  C.  VI,  67). 

It  is  difficult  to  see  what  significance  this  paper  given  to  one 
who  was  already  a  chief  could  have. 

Governor  D'Urban,  in  a  letter  to  the  Colonial  Secretary,  Lord 
Goderich,  Nove.nber  20,  1831,  fairly  defines  the  relation  of  the 
Oolony  to  the  Indians  (B.  C.  VI,  43): 


EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850.  Tla 

"  Mr.  Bagot  has  justly  said  that  *  we  have  not  dispossessed  the  Indians 
of  their  territory,'  they  occupy  it  as  freely  and  uninterruptedly  for  every 
purpose  which  is  essential  or  agreeable  to  them,  as  if  we  had  never  come 
hither  (by  the  way  we  only  succeeded  to  the  place  of  the  Dutch),  but  the 
tribes  who  live  within  reach  of  civilization,  derive  most  solid  and  important 
benefits  from  our  regular  and  constant  assistance." 

The  facts  stated  in  this  chapter  show  that  whatever  interpreta- 
tion may  be  put  upon  the  treaty  as  to  the  significance  of  acts  of 
Great  Britain,  either  of  settlement  or  of  political  control  in  the  dis- 
puted territory  since  1814,  no  extension  was  made  before  1850 
beyond  the  occupation  of  the  Dutch  at  the  date  of  the  Treaty  of 
London.  The  territory  now  in  dispute  was  substantially  in  the 
same  situation,  both  as  to  settlement  and  as  to  political  control, 
as  it  had  been  in  1814.  The  evidence  on  this  point  is  the  evidence 
adduced  by  the  British  Case. 

This  evidence  shows  that  there  was  neither  settlement  nor  the 
exercise  of  political  control  by  the  British  in  the  interior  west  of 
the  Cuyuni  falls,  or  in  the  coast  territory  west  of  Moruca. 

The  Agreement  of  1850  that  neither  party  would  occupy  or 
encroach  upon  the  territory  in  dispute,  has  been  discussed  in  the 
chapter  on  Diplomatic  Correspondence.  It  is  only  necessary  to 
say  a  word  in  reference  to  it  here. 

Assuming  for  the  sake  of  the  argument  that  the  British  conten- 
tion is  correct,  that  acts  of  occupation  subsequent  to  1814  are  to 
be  considered  as  establishing  title  in  this  arbitration,  which 
Venezuela  denies,  no  such  effect  can  be  given  to  any  act  of  occupa- 
tion after  the  adoption  of  the  agreement  and  while  it  continues  in 
force,  nor  can  any  existing  occupation  or  political  control  ripen 
during  the  continuance  of  the  agreement.  The  question  of  title 
to  the  disputed  territory  is,  as  it  were,  in  suspense,  and  each  State 
debars  itself  from  the  right  to  extend  in  any  manner  its  occupation 
therein,  or  to  take  any  benefit  by  the  running  of  any  prescriptive 
period.  It  constitutes  an  estoppel  upon  both  parties  as  to  such 
acts,  and  if  either  party  performs  such  an  act  it  is  also  estopped 


PJ1Q  EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850. 

from  deriving  any  benefit  in  law  therefrom.  All  questions  of 
occupancy  or  political  control  whether  arising  under  Rule  (a)  of 
the  Treaty  or  under  any  other  branch  of  this  investigation  become 
inoperative,  as  far  as  their  effect  upon  the  creation  or  confirm- 
ing of  title  is  concerned,  from  the  date  of  the  signature  of 
this  agreement.  No  period  can  run  after  the  adoption  of  this 
agreement.  All  operation  of  law  as  to  the  establishment  of  title 
is  in  suspense  during  this  agreement.  An  absolute  line  of  demar- 
cation is  established  in  the  boundary  controversy  by  the  year 
1850,  after  which  and  during  the  continuance  of  the  agreement  no 
act  of  either  party  has  any  legal  effect  whatever. 

The  Agreement  of  1850  was  appealed  to  by  the  British  Govern- 
ment as  late  as  1887,  and  has  never  been  abrogated.  It  is  there- 
fore still  in  force. 

A  word  must  be  said  here  in  reference  to  the  case  of  Thomas 
Garrett  (B.  C.  VI,  212).  Garrett  was  a  Creole  of  Georgetown, 
who  in  September,  1874,  committed  a  murder  in  Georgetown  and 
escaped  into  the  Barima  territory.  He  was  pursued  there  by 
British  Guiana  police  and  arrested  "on  the  banks  of  the  Amacura," 
brought  to  Georgetown,  tried,  convicted  and  sentenced. 

According  to  Governor  Longden  in  his  letter  to  Mr.  Middleton, 
January  30,  1875  (B.  C.  VI,  213):  | 

"  It  is  exceedingly  difficult  to  reconcile  the  accounts  which  the  con- 
stables give  with  the  existing  maps  of  the  district,  which  maps  are  incon- 
sistent with  each  other  and  probably  equally  incorrect.  The  country  ap- 
pears to  be  a  wilderness,  and  the  possession  of  it  is  claimed  by  Great  Britain 
and  by  Venezuela  alike.  It  is  in  fact  a  part  of  the  disputed  territory 
referred  to  by  Colonel  Wilson  in  his  dispatch  to  Lord  Palmerston  of  the 
JOtli  December,  1850,  with  regard  to  which  he  exchanged  declarations  with 
the  Venezuelan  Government  that  'neither  Government  should  occupy  oi 
encroach  upon  the  territory  in  dispute.'  As  far  as  this  Government  is  con- 
cerned, this  declaration  has  been  carefully  observed,  and  there  are  no  rest- 
rieut  British  authoritien  within  the  district.  But  I  apprehend  that  in 
agreeing  to  this  declaration  Her  Majesty's  Government  never  surrendered 
or  intended  to  surrender  their  claim  to  any  part  of  the  disputed  territory. 


EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850.  71^ 

unless  the  boundaries  of  Venezuela  and  British  Guiana  should  be  finally 
adjusted,  as  proposed  by  Lord  Aberdeen  in  1844." 

The  statement  on  the  part  of  the  Governor  that  "  there  are  no 
resident  British  authorities  within  the  district "  is  a  most  signifi- 
cant statement,  taken  in  connection  with  the  previous  statement 
that  "this  declaration  has  been  carefully  observed." 

In  Governor  Longden's  letter  to  the  Earl  of  Carnarvon  on  this 
subject,  dated  February  22,  1875,  he  says  (B.  C.  VI,  212): 

'*  Garrett  was  arrested  on  the  banks  of  the  Amacura  River,  the  river 
which  was  proposed  by  Sir  Robert  Schomburgk  in  1841  as  the  boundary 
between  Venezuela  and  British  Guiana,  but  which  boundary  was  not 
accepted  by  the  Venezuelan  Government,  and  is  not  acknowledged  by  either 
Government. 

The  position  taken  by  the  Foreign  Office,  in  its  instruction 
to  Mr.  Middleton,  vv^as  that,  as  far  as  the  Agreement  of  1850  was 
concerned  (B.  C.  VI,  215-6): 

"  It  could  not  have  been  intended  that  this  agreement  should  preclude 
either  Government  from  arresting  criminals  in  the  disputed  territory,  and 
that  it  would  be  most  undesirable  that  it  should  have  that  effect. 

"I  have  also  expressed  to  his  Lordship  my  opinion  that  for  the  above 
reasons— assuming  Governor  Longden  to  be  right  in  stating  that  Garrett 
was  arrested  in  the  disputed  territory,  and  not  within  Venezuelan  jurisdic- 
tion— the  trial  should  be  at  once  proceeded  with. 

''Lord  Carnarvon  has  concurred  in  this  view,  and  instructions  in  ac- 
cordance therewith  have  been  sent  to  the  Governor  of  British  Guiana. 

'*  I  have  to  instruct  you  to  inform  the  Venezuelan  Government  of  the 
•lecision  of  Her  Majesty's  Government  in  this  matter. 

"■  In  doing  so  you  will  be  careful  to  assure  the  Venezuelan  Government 
that  nothing  could  be  further  from  the  intention  of  her  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment than  to  sanction  any  infringement  of  the  territorial  rights  of  Vene- 
zuela. You  will  point  out  the  very  grave  misfortune  that  it  woiild  be  to 
Venezuela,  as  well  as  to  the  Colony  of  British  Guiana,  if  the  disputed 
territory  lying  between  them  were  allowed  to  become  a  sanctuary  in  which 
criminals  from  both  countries  might  take  refuge,  and  so  escape  the  punish- 
ment due  to  their  crimes;  and  you  will  state  that  Her  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment feel  confident  that,  on  full  consideration  of  the  matter,  the  Vene- 


I 


7lJi  EVENTS  IN  GUIANA  FROM  1814  TO  1850. 

zuelan  Government  will  recognize  the  justice  and  expediency  of  the  de- 
cigion  which  you  are  instructed  to  communicate  to  them." 

The  declaration  of  the  British  Government  is  most  important 
as  an  admission  that  all  but  special  and  necessary  jurisdiction  is 
pi-ohibited  by  the  Agreement  of  1850  in  the  disputed  territory. 

It  is  an  admission  that  the  exercise  of  such  special  jurisdic- 
tion, arising  from  the  necessities  of  the  situation,  and  to  prevent 
the  country  from  being  an  asylum  for  criminals,  should  not  have 
any  effect  in  establishing  control,  whichever  party  happened  to 
exercise  it. 


«i 


CHAPTER  XVm. 

NATIONAL  SECURITY. 

We  summarize  here  the  conclusions  which  we  have  thus  far 
reached. 

1.  That  Spain  discovered  Guiana  and,  by  a  first  and  timely 
settlement  of  a  part  for  the  whole,  perfected  her  title  to  the 
whole  of  the  geographical  unit  known  as  Guiana. 

2.  That,  if  Spain's  discoveries,  settlements  and  armed  expedi- 
tions are  held  to  be  inadequate  to  complete  her  title  to  the  whole 
of  Guiana,  they  are  certainly  effective  as  to  all  of  the  disputed 
territory. 

:'».  That  even  if  Spain's  inchoate  title  had  not  been  perfected 
when  the  Dutch  occupied  the  mouth  of  the  Essequibo,  she  had 
not  abandoned  that  region  in  fact,  and  no  presumption  of  an 
abandonment  had  then  arisen;  and  the  Dutch  entry — even  if  a 
peaceful  one — was  premature  and  wrongful. 

4.  That,  in  fact,  the  Dutch  entry  at  Essequibo  was  not  an 
attempt  to  appropriate  lands  believed  to  be  open  to  peaceful 
settlement,  but  was  an  act  of  war— the  forcible  appropriation,  in 
war,  of  territory  know^n  to  be  claimed  by  Spain,  and  as  to  which 
Spain's  purpose  to  hold  and  to  settle  was  well  known. 

5.  That,  by  the  Treaty  of  Munster,  the  Dutch  title  by  conquest 
to  the  places  then  actually  possessed  by  them  in  Guiana,  was  con- 
firmed by  cession  from  Spain. 

6.  That  the  treaty  involved  the  concession  that  what  was  not 
given  to  the  Dutch  was  retained  by  Spain,  and  that,  when  the 
limits  of  the  Dutch  possessions  were  marked,  the  territory  beyond 
—to  the  north  and  west— was  Spain's  territory. 

7.  That,  at  the  date  of  the  Treaty  of  Munster,  the  Dutch  were 
not  in  the  possession  of  any  part  of  the  disputed  territory. 


720  NATIONAL  SECURITY. 

8.  That  the  Dutch  could  not  thereafter  acquire  title  to  any  part 
of  the  disputed  teriitory  save  by  prescription,  and  that  a  public, 
continuous,  adverse,  undisputed,  actual  and  firm  occupation, 
under  a  claim  of  right,  for  fifty  years  was  necessary  to  perfect  a 
title  by  prescription. 

9.  That  there  was  never  any  such  occupation  by  the  Dutch  of 
any  part  of  the  disputed  territory;  every  attempt  at  occupation 
being  protested  and  resisted  by  Spain;  and  every  such  attempt 
having  utterly  failed,  except  the  settlement  in  the  Pomeroon- 
Moruca  region. 

10.  That  the  exclusive  political  control  which  the  Tribunal  is 
given  au  option  to  consider  as  the  equivalent  of  adverse  holding, 
must  have  the  characteristics  of  an  adverse  holding  which    we 
have  enumerated,   and   that  no   exclusive   political  control  was 
ever  exercised  by  the  Dutch  over  any  part  of  the  disputed  terri- 
tory unless  perhaps  it  be  on  the  Pomeroon.     In  the  close  neighbor- 
hood of  the  Moruca  post  such  a  control  was  exercised,  but  it  wat 
protested  and  resisted  by  Spain  in  every  way  that  was  open  t< 
her— as  has  been  every  attempt  to  make  settlements  or  to  assum< 
control  of  the  disputed  territory. 

11.  That  the  Agreement  of  1850  cut  off  all  titles  by  prescrip- 
tion or  political  control,  and  established  a  neutral  status  in  th( 
disputed  territory;  that  all  acts  of  Great  Britain  since  are  whollj 
ineffectual  to  extend  her  territory  or  to  confirm  her  title. 

12.  That,  whether  the  Dutch  title  is  rested  upon  conquest, 
cession  or  prescription,  it  is  a  strict  and  limited  title,  in  behalf  of 
which  the  rules  as  to  constructive  occupation  cannot  be  invoked. 
The  conqueror  gets  only  so  much  as  he  firmly  holds;  the  grantee 
only  what  is  granted;  one  who  prescribes,  only  what  he  has 
actually  appropriated.  None  of  these  can  invoke  against  the 
party  from  whom  the  title  is  wrested  any  rule  of  constructive  oc- 
cupation, such  as  the  rule  of  natural  boundaries,  of  water  shed, 
of  middle  distance,  or  any  other  rule  that  is  rested  upon  such 
considerations  as  safety  or  convenience,  or  geographical  unity  and 


NATIONAL  SECURITY.  72 1 

the  like.  These  rules  rest  upon  the  theorj'-  that  the  contending 
nations  have  equally  meritorious  and  original  titles,  and  cannot 
be  used  to  extend  a  grant,  or  to  aid  a  disseizor. 

But  Great  Britain  denies  that  the  Dutch  territories  in  Guiana 
were  in  any  way  derived  from  Spain.  She  expressly  disclaims 
any  title  by  conquest,  or  by  cession,  from  Spain.  A  title  by  pre- 
scription is  tentatively  put  forward,  but  the  territory  to  which  it 
is  applied  is  left  undefined,  and  it  seems  to  be  denied  that  this  pre- 
scription is  used  to  cut  off  a  prior  Spanish  title.  It  is  rather  pre- 
scription in  the  sense  of  occupatio.  For  the  British  contention  is 
that  Spain  had  no  title  whatever,  either  to  the  lands  in  Guiana 
originally  occupied  by  the  Dutch,  or  to  those  "  great  extensions  " 
afterwards  made  by  them;  that  all  of  these  lands  were  terra  nul- 
lius,  subject  to  be  freely  appropriated  by  any  nation;  that,  there- 
fore, the  Dutch  may  claim  for  their  settlements  the  same  broad 
effects — as  to  their  constructive  limits — that  can  be  claimed  for 
those  of  Spain,  the  discoverer  and  first  settler.  If  the  prescription 
set  up  is  used  to  cut  off  a  prior  Spanish  title,  this  would  hardly  be 
claimed.  The  convenience  and  security  of  a  disseizor  is  not  taken 
account  of.  Now,  while  this  contention  of  Great  Britain  is  utterly 
unsupported  by  the  facts,  and  directly  contradicted  by  the  official 
declarations  of  her  grantor,  made  before  the  grant,  and  directly  to 
her,  we  ought,  perhaps,  to  discuss  briefly  the  boundary  question 
upon  the  basis  of  this  contention. 

Upon  the  theory  of  the  British  Case  that  the  actual  settlements 
of  Spain  in  Guiana  did  not  have  relation  to  the  whole  of  that 
province,  or  to  the  whole  of  the  disputed  territory,  but  only  con- 
firmed her  title  as  a  discoverer  to  such  parts  of  it  as  were  actually 
occupied  by  her— leaving  all  other  parts  open  to  the  occupation  of 
the  Dutch— and  that  there  was  an  implied  abandonment  by  Spain 
which  must  prevail  even  against  her  expressed  intent  to  occupy 
the  whole,  what  are  the  rules  of  law  as  to  the  hmits  that  will  be 
allowed  to  the  Dutch  settlements?  Are  they  to  be  fixed  upon  a 
basis  that  admits  a  constructive  possession  of  vast  unoccupied 


•J22  NATIONAL  SECURITY. 

areas,  upon  a  basis  that  allows  to  the  Dutch  all  of  the  equitable 
exteasions  that  may  be  claimed  for  the  settleraeuts  of  the  dis- 
coverer? 

May  the  second  comer,  for  instance,  claim  one-half,  or  even 
more  if  a  natural  boundary  suggests  it,  of  the  territory  that  inter- 
venes between  his  settlements  and  those  of  the  discoverer?  If  in 
this  unoccupied,  intermediate  space,  there  is  a  region  that  is 
equally  necessary  to  the  safety  of  each  settlement,  has  the  dis- 
coverer and  first  comer  no  preferential  right?  Are  the  intend- 
ments of  law,  as  to  the  extent  of  an  occupancy,  to  be  given  their 
full  scope  in  behalf  of  the  first  comer  and  exhausted  before  the 
rights  of  the  second  comer  can  be  considered,  or  do  they  enter  in 
parity  of  right?  Or  is  it  true— as  seems  to  be  claimed  by  the 
British  Case— that  all  of  the  equitable  intendments  and  construc- 
tive extensions  are  to  be  allowed  to  the  second  comer?  May  he 
extend  his  limits  so  as  to  close  the  access  to  the  discoverer's  settle- 
ments and  to  command  the  entire  interior  possessions  of  the  dis- 
coverer and  reach  to  the  very  heart  of  his  settlements? 

May  the  second  comer  not  only  claim  a  middle  line,  but  extend 
himself,  by  construction,  to  the  fenced  possessions  of  the  discoverer 
and  first  settler? 

Given,  settlements  by  the  discoverer  on  the  Orinoco,  and  by 
the  second  comer  on  the  Essequibo,  may  the  second  comer  make 
the  Orinoco  the  hne  of  division?  Is  the  discoverer  to  be  treated 
with  severity,  and  the  one  who  followed  in  the  road  he  had  opened, 
with  liberality?  The  rules  suggested  by  the  British  Case  seem  to 
imply  all  this. 

In  the  British  Counter-Case  (par.  9,  p.  136)  we  have  the  state- 
ment: 

"  There  is  no  distincLiou  between  the  first  and  second  comer  beyond  this 
that,  us  ulreiidy  stated,  the  first  comer  has  a  right  within  a  reasonable  time 
to  take  possession  of  his  discoTery;  otherwise  the  same  rules  apply  to  the 
original  possessor  as  to  the  person  taking  subsequent  possession." 


NATIONAL  SECURITY.  Y23 

In  subdivision  4  of  the  Principles  of  Law  given  in  the  British 
Ca  se  (p.  149)  it  is  said : 

"As  between  two  or  more  neighbouring  and  rival  settlements,  the  line  of 
division  cannot  be  ascertained  by  any  hard  and  fast  rule  applicable  to  all 
cases.  A  line  must  be  looked  for  which  shall  divide  the  country  in  accord- 
ance with  the  principles  which,  upon  a  consideration  of  all  the  local  circum- 
stances, seem  those  of  natural  division.  But  great  weight  must  also  be 
given  to  the  relative  importance  and  presumable  power  of  expansion  in  the 
direction  of  the  vacant  territory  of  the  settlements,  between  which  it  is  to 
be  divided." 

The  rule  here  stated  is  that,  if  the  second  comer  is  more 
wealthy,  populous  and  powerful  than  the  discoverer,  the  terri- 
torial division  is  to  be  upon  the  lines  of  the  relative  importance 
and  power  of  the  discoverer  and  the  intruder. 

In  the  dispute  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  as 

to  the  Oregon  boundary,  Great  Britain  was  at  the  other  end  of 

the  argument.     Mr.  Twiss  (Oregon  Case,   p.   312)  represents  Mr. 

Gallatin,  on  behalf  of  the  United  States,  as  putting  forward,  as 

a  consideration  affecting  title  by  contiguity,  the  superior  ability 

of  the   United  States   to   settle  the  territory.     This  theory  was 

utterly  rejected  by  Great   Britain,  and  Mr.  Twiss  thus  disposes 

of  it: 

'*  The  reason  which  Mr.  Gallatin  alleged  in  support  of  the  title  by  con- 
tiguity, namely,  the  facility  with  which  the  vacant  territory  would  be 
occupied  by  the  teeming  population  of  the  United  States,  is  but  the  dis- 
guised appeal  to  the  principle  of  the  vis  major,  and  strikes  at  the  root  of 
the  fundamental  axiom  of  international  law,  that  all  nations  are  upon  a 
footing  of  perfect  equality  as  to  their  obligations  and  rights." 

The  law  writers  do  not  allow  a  parity  of  right  to  the  second 
comer.     Twiss  (Law  of  Nations,  Sec.  128)  says: 

"  When  title  by  settlement  is  superadded  to  title  by  discovery  the  law  of 
nations  will  acknowledge  the  settlers  to  have  a  perfect  title;  but  when  title 
by  settlement  is  opposed  to  title  by  discovery,  although  no  convention  can 
be  appealed  to  in  proof  of  the  discovery  having  been  waived,  still  a  tacit 
acquiescence  on  the  part  of  the  nation  that  asserts  the  discovery,  during  a 
reasonable  lapse  of  time  since  the  settlement  has  taken  place,  will  bar  the 
claim  to  disturb  the  settlement" 


Y24  NATIONAL  SECURITY. 

He  then  quotes  Wheaton  as  basing  a  title  by  settlement  on 
an  implied  intention  of  the  discoverer  to  abandon  the  territory  and 
a  prescription  by  the  settlers. 

And  in  the  next  section  he  says: 

"Title  by  settlement  then,  as  distinguished  from  title  by  discovery, 
when  set  up  as  a  perfect  title,  resolves  itself  into  title  by  usucaption  or 
prescription. " 

He  then  proceeds  to  show  that  the  title  rests  upon  the  implied 
acquiescence  of  the  discoverer,  his  silence  after  knowledge  of  long 
uninterrupted  possession.  He  says  the  lav^r  of  nations  has  not  de- 
fined the  length  of  time  that  will  constitute  a  title  by  prescription 
and  refers  to  the  Hudson  Bay  dispute  between  France  and  Eng- 
land, where  England  claimed  title  by  discovery,  but  also  alleged 
against  the  French  claim  of  discovery,  an  acquiescence  in  British 
settlement. 

This  author  then  distinctly  discriminates  between  the  settle- 
ments by  a  discoverer  and  settlements  by  a  second  comer.  The 
latter  he  rests  upon  prescription,  matured  by  the  acquiescence  of 
the  discoverer.  He  cannot,  however,  be  taken  to  acquiesce  unless 
there  has  been  an  actual  possession,  and  only  so  far  as  that  has 
extended. 

Fiore  (Paris  edition,  1885,  Sec.  850),  well  points  out  that  non- 
user  is  not  abandonment  unless  there  be  a  clear  intent  to  renounce 
title.  But  if  one  state  cease  to  physically  occupy  or  use  a  tract, 
and  a  second  state,  though  without  any  right  of  possession,  does 
actually  take  physical  possession,  and  holds  it  with  manifestations 
that  are  obvious,  open  and  unequivocal  {signi  esteriori  non 
eqiiivoci),  and  this  condition  of  things  is  known  to  the  state  which 
formerly  had  possession,  and  is  tolerated  by  it;  this,  if  continued 
long  enough,  proves  an  abandonment,  and,  as  a  legal  consequence, 
legitimatizes  the  possession.  This,  Fiore  thinks,  is  the  true  origin 
of  international  prescription. 

We  will  try,  then,  to  point  out  how  far  the  British  claims  ex- 
ceed her  rights,  even  upon  the  theory  that  Spain  had  no  other  ad- 


NATIONAL  SECURITY.  Y25 

vantage  than  such  as  belongs  to  the  first  comer;  that  each  was 
entitled  to  hold  only  the  lands  it  occupied  and  such  further 
bounds  as  are,  for  one  reason  or  another,  allowed  by  the  rules  of 
international  law  to  be  attendant  upon  or  appurtenant  to  the 
lands  occupied. 

In  the  very  nature  of  things  the  first  comer  has  this  advantage. 
His  constructive  limits  are  not  curtailed  by  those  of  any  rival 
claimant.  He  is  entitled,  from  the  date  of  his  settlement,  to  the 
widest  constructive  limits  allowed  by  law. 

The  second  comer  can  take  only  what  is  left;  and  none  of  the 
rules  of  constructive  possession  can  be  used  by  him  to  curtail  the 
constructive  occupation  of  the  first  comer. 

Before  any  Dutch  occupation  in  Guiana,  Spain  had  settle- 
ments at  Trinidad,  Santo  Thome  and  Essequibo.  The  fiist  two 
of  these  were,  when  the  Dutch  came  to  Essequibo,  peopled  by 
Spaniards  and  held  by  Spanish  officers  and  garrisons.  Essequibo 
was  not  at  the  time  actually  occupied,  but  had  not  been  aban- 
doned. 

From  the  time  when  the  Spaniards  first  settled  in  Trinidad 
and  in  the  Orinoco,  the  Essequibo  was  constantly  visited  by  them; 
and  a  Spanish  colony  was  actually  established  in  that  territory. 
Fortifications  were  erected,  and  the  land  was  placed  under  cultiva- 
tion for  the  purpose  of  producing  bread  for  the  Governor  at 
Trinidad. 

But,  waiving  at  this  point  the  consideration  of  the  Spanish  set- 
tlement in  Essequibo,  let  us  see  what  constructive  limits  the  law 
assigned  to  the  Spanish  occupation  of  the  Orinoco. 

The  first  rule  of  law  to  which  we  call  attention  is  thus  stated 
by  Hall  (Int.  Law,  4  ed.,  110): 

"  A  settlement  is  entitled  not  only  to  the  lands  actually  inhabited  or 
brought  under  its  immediate  control,  but  to  all  those  which  may  be  needed 
for  its  security." 

This  extract  is  quoted  in  the  British  Case,  without  dissent,  and 

may,  therefore,  be  taken  as  accepted: 


Y20  NATIONAL  SECURITY. 

PhilUmore  (Int.  Law,  3d  ed.,  i,  pp.  33Y-338)says: 
"  They  (the  law  writers)  all  agree  that  the  Right  of  Occupation  incident 
to  a  settlement,  such  as  has  been  described,  extends  over  all  territory  ac- 
tually and  bona  fide  occupied,  over  all  that  is  essential  to  the  real  use  of  the 
settlers,  although  the  use  be  only  inchoate,  and  not  fully  developed ;  over  all, 
in  fact,  that  is  necessary  for  the  integrity  and  security  of  the  possession,  such 
necessity  being  measured  by  the  principle  already  applied  to  the  parts  of  the 
seu  adjacent  to  the  coasts,  namely,  tJi/wtYwr  imperium  uUfinitur  armorum 
vis.  The  application  of  the  principle  to  a  territorial  boundary  is,  of  course, 
dependent  in  each  case  upon  details  of  the  particular  topography." 

And  Twiss  (Law  of  Nations,  Sec.  133),  speaking  of  the  rule  of 
a  mid-channel  boundary,  says: 

'*  Circumstances  however  may  create  exceptions,  as  for  instance  when 
the  control  of  a  district  not  actually  reduced  into  the  possession  of  a  nation 
is  necessary  for  its  security,  and  is  not  essential  to  the  security  of  the  co- 
terminous state." 

Spain,  from  the  moment  Trinidad  and  Santo  Thome  were  set- 
tled, was  entitled  to  the  full  application  of  this  rule  in  her  behalf. 
No  settlement  made  thereafter  by  the  Dutch  could,  by  any  construc- 
tive effect,  in  the  slightest  degree  invade  the  limits  given  by  the 
rule  to  Spain.  That  these  limits  leave  the  Dutch  insecure,  gives 
them  no  right  to  demand  a  new  line.  They  might  as  well  claim 
the  right  to  push  back  the  discoverer's  line  of  actual  occupation. 

Let  us  now  apply  this  rule  to  the  case  in  hand.  It  gave  to 
Spain  as  appurtenant  to  her  settlements  all  territory  and  places 
that  might  reasonably  be  needed  for  their  security  and  integrity. 
Surely  we  do  not  need  to  make  an  argument  to  prove  that  the  oc- 
cupancy of  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco  by  any  other  power  was  abso- 
lutely incompatible  with  the  security,  not  only  of  Santo  Thome, 
but  of  the  Spanish  settlements  to  the  south  of  that  river.  It  is 
wholly  unworthy  of  discussion  whether  such  an  occupancy  would 
have  been  a  complete  barrier  to  Spanish  access  from  the  sea  to 
the  Orinoco;  or  would  only  have  made  such  access  difficult  and 
perilous.  It  is  to  us  matter  of  great  surprise  that,  admitting  the 
rule  we  are  discussing,  Great  Britain  should  put  forward  a  claim 


NATIONAL  SECURITY.  Y27 

to  Barima  Point.  Of  the  military  and  commercial  results  of  the 
occupancy  of  Barima  Point  she  was  early  advised.  Indeed  it 
is  plain  from  Schomburgk's  report  that  the  unfair  advantages  to 
result  therefrom  had  much  to  do  vi^ith  the  line  he  proposed.  He 
says  (June  22,  1841): 

*'  The  peculiar  configuration  of  the  only  channel  (Boca  de  Navios),  which 
admits  vessels  of  some  draught  to  the  Orinoco,  passes  near  Point  Barima,  so 
that  if  hereafter  it  l3ecame  of  advantage  to  command  the  entrance  to  the 
Orinoco,  this  might  be  easily  effected  from  that  point.  This  assertion  is 
supported  by  Colonel  Moody's  evidence,  who  visited  this  spot  in  his  military 
capacity  in  the  commencement  of  this  century."  (B.  C,  VII,  p.  13.) 

He  adds  that  to  place  some  person  of  authority  at  this  point 
vi^ould  "command  from  the  neighbouring  States  that  respect  to 
which  a  British  colony  like  Guiana  has  full  right." 

The  word  "respect "  seems  here  to  be  used  in  the  sense  of  sub- 
mission.    It  is  the  "  respect"  that  a  prisoner  pays  to  his  jailer. 

In  a  confidential  letter  to  Governor  Light,  written  October  23, 
1841,  Schomburgk  more  fully  explains  the  importance  which  at- 
taches to  Barima  Point,  and  here  discloses  a  stronger  and  doubt- 
less the  true  reason  for  his  attempt  to  fix  the  boundary  at  the 
Amacura.  He  shows  that  the  Orinoco  offers  water  transportation 
for  from  400  to  500  leagues;  that  there  are  nearly  300  tributary 
streams  of  more  or  less  importance  which  also  serve  as  canals  and 
facilitate  commerce;  that  Santa  Fe  de  Bogota  may  be  reached 
within  a  distance  of  eight  miles  by  one  of  these  tributaries,  and  (to 
quote)  that  "  operations  of  commerce  or  war,  combined  with 
others  from  the  Pacific,  could  be  carried  on  by  means  of  the  vast 
plains  or  llanos.  A  small  fleet  may  go  up  the  Orinoco  and  the 
Meta  within  15  or  20  leagues  of  Santa  Fe,  and  the  flour 
of  New  Granada  may  be  conveyed  down  the  same  way. 

And  the  only  access  to  this  vast  inland  communication  for 
sailing  vessels  of  more  than  10  feet  draft  of  water  is  by  means  of 
the  Boca  de  Navios,  which  is  commanded  from  Point  Barima.^^  (B. 
C.  VII,  p.  33.) 


/728  NATIONAL  SECURITY. 

He  proceeds  to  say  that  Venezuela  "  would  be  an  insignificant 
enemy,"  but  points  out  that  some  maritime  power  of  Europe 
might  get  Barima.  It  is  not  an  altogether  unfamiliar  policy  this 
—to  seize  a  military  or  commercial  strategic  point  from  a  weak 
power,  out  of  the  assumed  fear  that  some  other  strong  power 
might  get  it,  or  to  equalize  the  seizure  of  some  other  strategic 
point  by  another  nation.  France,  he  says,  has  attempted  to 
extend  the  bounds  of  Cayenne  to  the  Amazon,  and  her  success 
will  give  her  the  control  of  the  great  commerce  of  that  river. 
She  might  also  seize  Barima,  and,  therefore.  Great  Britain  must 
seize  it.     We  quote  further: 

'*  France  has  attempted  to  establish  a  fortified  position  at  the  mouth  of 
the  Amazon  near  Macapa,  which  she  claims  as  the  eastern  boundary  of 
Cayenne.  A  settlement  at  this  spot  commands  the  commerce  of  the  Ama- 
lon,  and  this  no  doubt,  is  the  reason  why  this  Power  puts  such  importance 
upon  its  possession.  Supposing  that  unforeseen  circumstances  should  put 
France  in  occupation  of  Point  Barima  at  the  Orinoco,  and  that  Macapa  at 
the  Amazon  is  ceded  to  her,  she  will  then  command  the  commerce  of  the 
two  first  rivers  of  South  America,  and  hold  the  military  keys  of  the  north - 
em  provinces  of  Brazil  and  of  the  former  Spanish  provinces  of  South 
America,  north  of  the  equator,  which  territories  will  be  always  at  the 
mercy  of  that  power  which  commands  the  channels  to  their  commerce." 
(B.  C,  VII,  pp.  33-34.) 

Yes;  Barima  Point  commands  the  whole  drainage  basin  of  the 
Orinoco,  and  these  vast  territories  '"will  be  always  at  the  mercy 
of  that  power  which  commands  the  channels  of  their  com- 
merce." 

The  author  of  these  suggestions  very  suitably  marked  them 
•* confidential."    They  do  not  bear  the  light  well. 

In  this  confidential  letter  of  October  23,  1841,  Schomburgk 
quotes  Colonel  Moody,  who,  as  he  says  in  his  letter  of  June  22, 
"  was  sent  in  the  earlier  part  of  this  century  to  report  on  the 
military  situation  of  the  Orinoco,"  as  saying  that  Point  Barima 
was  ••susceptable  {sic)  of  being  fortified  so  as  to  resist  almost  any 
attack  on  the  sea-side— the  small  depth  of  water,  the  nature  of  the 
tides,  and  its  muddy  shores,  defend  it.    The  Barima,  and  the  un- 


NATIONAL  SECURITY.  t29 

cultivated  forests  on  marshy  ground,  present  an  impenetrable 
baiTier  against  the  interior,  and  debarkation  from  the  Orinoco 
might  be  put  under  the  fire  of  any  number  of  guns— and  the  land 
reproaches  (sic)  on  that  soil  could  be  easily  rendered  inaccessible 
to  an  invading  force." 

Mr.  Schomburgk  adds  that  this  statement  is  "fully  born  out 
by  personal  inspection  during  my  late  survey  of  the  entrance  to 
the  Barima."  (B.  C,  VII,  p.  83.) 

It  would  seem,  from  Colonel  Moody's  mission,  that  the  English 
interest  in  Barima  Point  antedated  Schomburgk's  alleged  discovery 
of  traces  of  Dutch  occupation  there. 

Great  Britain  cannot,  in  view  of  these  reports  from  her  civil 
and  military  representatives  in  Guiana,  deny  that  the  control  of 
Barima  Point  was  essential  to  the  military  and  commercial  secur- 
ity, not  of  Santo  Thome  alone,  but  of  the  Spanish  settlements  to 
the  south  of  the  Orinoco,  which  must  use  that  river  as  an  outlet. 
It  seems,  indeed,  that  the  product  of  the  mines  of  Peru  were  sent, 
in  a  good  measure,  by  the  Orinoco  to  Spain.  This  fact  and  the 
rule  of  law,  as  stated  by  Hall,  being  admitted,  the  Barima  region 
was  as  definitely  and  absolutely  Spanish  territory  when  the  Dutch 
entered  the  Essequibo  as  were  the  fields  and  gardens  about  Santo 
Thome. 

The  control  of  the  Orinoco  is  to  Venezuela  a  matter  affecting 
the  control  of  her  commerce  and  her  national  security.  To  Great 
Britain  it  involves  nothing  as  to  her  own  commerce  or  security, 
but  only  the  right  to  subordinate  the  commerce  and  the  liberties 
of  a  sister  nation. 

But  the  possession  of  Barima  Point  does  not  satisfy  the 
reasonable  demand  for  security  of  the  Spanish  settlements  on  the 
Orinoco.  The  Point  is  of  little  value  if  it  may  be  easily  flanked 
by  a  vsrater  route.  The  possession  of  all  affluents  of  the  Orinoco, 
entering  above  the  Point,  is  essential.  The  evidence  shows  that 
the  route  of  commerce  from  Essequibo  to  the  Orinoco  was  by  the 


J^30  NATIONAL  SECURITY. 

Waini  and  the  Barima,  those  internal  water  passages.  The  con- 
trol of  the  trade  of  the  Orinoco  involved  i:he  control  of  the  Waiiii, 
Barima  and  the  Aniacura.  The  control  of  the  mouths  of  these 
would  not  be  efficient— if  hostile  expeditions  and  contraband 
traders  might  use  the  streams  to  points  near  the  Orinoco.  These 
rivers  and  the  Mora  passage  were  the  side  doors  of  the  Orinoco, 
and  if  they  were  open,  the  bolting  of  the  front  door  was  of  no 
avail.  The  British  Counter-Case  (p.  28)  expressly  admits  that 
**The  Spaniards  entered,  explored,  settled,  and  effectively  de- 
fended the  Orinoco" 

If  flie  Orinoco  was  Spain's  and  she  was  entitled  to  control  its 
mouth  for  her  security,  then  she  must,  for  the  same  reason,  also 
control  all  affluents  entering  that  river  above  the  extreme  project- 
ing points  of  its  shores.  This  would  carry  the  Spanish  limits  to 
the  headwaters  of  all  rivers  through  which  a  water  access  might 
be  had  to  the  Orinoco. 

We  shall  a  little  later  discuss  the  water  shed  theory  put  for- 
ward by  Great  Britain,  in  its  application  to  the  Orinoco,  but  for 
the  present  we  confine  ourselves  to  the  discussion  of  the  rule  of 
security  and  integrity. 

This  rule  has  a  further  application.  The  ownership  of  the  Ori- 
noco, and  the  settlement  at  Santo  Thome,  are  not  secure,  even  if 
the  mouth  and  all  the  affluents  of  that  river  be  given  to  Spain,  if 
there  is  not  also  allowed,  as  attendant  upon  that  ownership  and 
the  settlements  on  the  Orinoco,  such  a  breadth  of  land  on  the 
south  bank  as  to  keep  an  enemy  from  a  quick  and  easy  access  to 
the  river.  The  second  comer  may  not,  by  a  mere  constructive 
occupation,  extend  his  bounds  threateningly  near  to  the  "very 
heart ' '  of  Spain's  actual  occupation. 

The  British  Case  puts  forward  a  claim  to  the  whole  water  shed 
of  the  Kssequibo  and  its  tributaries;  but  this  is  based  upon  a 
Dutch  occupation  that  did  not  exist  when  the  limits  of  Spain's 
earlier  settlements  were  assigned. 


NATIONAL  SECURITY.  T31 

The  effect  of  allowing  this  claim,  Schomburgk  thus  describes 
(V.  C.  vol.  iii,  p.  13Y): 

"  I  consider  that  Her  Majesty  has  undoubted  right  to  any  territory 
through  which  flow  rivers  that  fall  directly,  or  through  others,  into  the 
River  Essequibo.  Your  Excellency  is  well  aware  that  the  Cuyuni  falls  a 
few  miles  above  the  penal  settlement  into  the  Mazaruni,  and  both  river, 
after  their  junction  empty  themselves  at  Bartika  Point  into  the  Essequibos 
Upon  this  principle  the  boundary  line  would  run  from  the  sources  of  the 
Carimani  towards  the  sources  of  the  Cuyuni  proper,  and  from  thence 
towards  its  far  more  northern  tributaries,  the  Rivers  Iruari  and  Iruang,  and 
thus  approach  the  very  heart  of  Venezuelan  Guiana." 

He  then  proceeds  to  point  out  that  these  inland  regions  are  of 
less  importance  to  Great  Britain  than  Point  Barima,  called  by  the 
Venezuelans  "  the  Dardanelles  of  the  Orinoco";  but  that,  by  put- 
ting forward  the  water  shed  claim,  Great  Britain  would  acquire 
"additional  grounds  to  impress  the  claim  of  Point  Barima."  And 
indeed  the  fading  Indian  traditions  and  the  faint  evidences  that 
some  one,  assumed  to  be  a  Dutchman,  had  lived  at  Barima,  sadly 
needed  the  aid  which  this  suggested  barter  would  give. 

The  grim  truth  of  Schomburgk's  statements  as  to  the  scope  of 
the  watershed  claim  will  appear  when  we  examine  a  table  of  dis- 
tances. This  watershed  line  is  distant  from  the  south  bank  of 
the  Orinoco,  at  the  mouth  of  the  Aguirre,  40  miles;  at  the  mouth 
of  the  Imataca,  53  miles;  at  the  mouth  of  the  Piacoa,  23  miles;  at 
the  first  site  of  Santo  Thome,  29  miles;  at  the  second  site  of  Santo 
Thome,  21  miles,  and  at  the  mouth  of  the  Caroni,  35  miles. 
The  line  is  nowhere  more  than  64  miles  from  the  lower  Orinoco. 
Along  the  line  of  the  Caroni  it  runs,  at  the  mouth  of  the  Usupano, 
within  10  miles  of  the  Caroni,  and  at  other  points  is  19,  20  and 
25  miles  distant. 

The  line,  at  the  point  where  it  comes  within  21  miles  of  Santo 
[Thome,  is  distant  288  miles  from  Fort  Kykoveral. 

Here,  then,  we  have  a  second  comer  claiming  a  constructive 
^extension  of  the  limits  of  a  single  small  settlement  that  would 
carry  his  line,  at  its  most  distant  point,  300  miles  from  that  settle- 


Y82  NA'nONAL  SECURITY. 

ment  and  to  within  21  miles  of  the  principal  settlement  ot  the  dis- 
coverer and  first  settler  of  the  country. 

Phillimore  says  of  "  natural  boundaries": 

•'  We  know  indeed,  alas !  b)'  recent  experience,  that  the  phrases  '  natural 
boundaries ' ;  and  '  rectification  of  frontiers '  have  been  used  by  powerful  mili- 
tary States  to  cover  unjust  spoliation  of  the  property  of  their  weaker 
neighbour."    (Int.  Law,  3d  ed.  i,  345.) 

The  reasonable  security  of  the  Spanish  settlements  is  flagrantly 
denied,  if  the  second  comer  may,  by  invoking  another  rule  of  con- 
structive occupation,  limit  the  Spanish  territory  to  a  narrow  strip 
along  a  great  river,  both  banks  of  which  Spain  had  first  occupied, 
and  bring  a  hostile  power  within  twenty -one  miles  of  Spain's 
principal  settlement.  The  rule  of  security  is  the  rule  that  first 
comes  into  operation  and  dominates  every  other.  If,  therefore, 
the  rule  as  to  the  water  shed  were,  as  Great  Britain  now  states  it, 
rather  than  as  she  stated  it  in  the  Oregon  controversy,  it  must 
give  way  to  Spain's  prior  right  to  be  secure  in  her  ownership  of 
the  Orinoco  and  its  tributaries.  The  water  shed  theory  is  not  left 
to  have  a  partial  apphcation,  but  is  wholly  put  out  of  use  by  the 
Dutch,  for  the  reason  that  before  the  Dutch  entered  the  Essequibo 
the  upper  water  shed  had  been  occupied  by  Spain — under  the  rule 
we  are  considering. 

We  conclude,  therefore,  that  if  Spain  had  no  other  advantage 
than  that  of  the  first  comer,  the  rule  of  reasonable  security  gave 
to  her,  as  appended  to  her  Orinoco  settlements,  both  banks  of  the 
Orinico,  and  of  all  afifluents  of  that  river  entering  above  Barima 
Point,  and,  at  the  least,  such  a  width  of  territory  to  the  east  of 
the  Orinoco  as  would  reasonably  protect  its  eastern  or  southern 
bank  and  the  settlements  thereon  from  quick  and  easy  attack. 

Cape  Nassau  would  be  the  nearest  eastern  point  on  the  coast 
that  could  possibly  be  suggested  as  the  line  of  security.  If  it  be 
said  that  such  a  line  would  open  a  back  door  to  Essequibo,  the 
answer  is  obvious:  The  line  was  drawn  and  this  territory  was 
Spain's  before  the  Dutch  came. 


NATIONAL  SECURITY.  Y33 

As  to  the  interior,  it  is  not  so  easy  to  locate  the  exact  line  of 
security  as  related  to  the  Orinoco  settlements  alone.  But  when 
we  take  into  account  the  fact  that  Santo  Thome  was  a  gateway  to 
El  Dorado,  and  that  this  interior  was,  in  the  language  of  Philli- 
more,  "  essential  to  the  real  use  of  the  settlers,"  without  which 
there  would  be  no  reason  for  maintaining  Santo  Thome,  we  are 
enabled  to  say  that  the  region  attendant  upon  the  Spanish  occu- 
pation of  the  Orinoco  certainly  embraced  a  large  part  of  the 
territory  now  claimed  by  Great  Britain  in  the  interior.  Santo 
Thome  was  the  military  and  commercial  base  for  the  great  in- 
terior. It  was  established  and  defended  as  a  gateway,  and  to 
isolate  it  is  to  destroy  the  only  reason  for  its  existence. 

We  have  not  coupled  the  Spanish  occupation  of  the  Essequibo 
with  their  settlements  on  the  Orinoco  in  this  discussion.  Else- 
where we  have  clearly  shown,  we  think,  that  Spain  occupied  the 
Essequibo  before  the  Dutch  came,  and  that  her  absence  at  the 
time  did  not  work  an  abandonment.  If  that  be  so,  then  any  con- 
structive extension  of  the  limits  of  a  settlement  at  the  mouth  of 
the  Essequibo,  which  the  law  allows,  would  belong  to  Spain.  If 
the  occupation  of  the  mouth  of  the  river  had  the  effect  claimed 
for  it  by  Great  Britain,  the  basin  had  been  appropriated  by  Spain 
before  the  Dutch  came;  and  that  appropriation  could  not  be 
affected  by  the  wrongful  entry  of  the  Dutch  beyond  the  line  of 
their  actual  occupation. 

There  is  another  rule  of  law  closely  related  to  the  rule  we  have 
been  discussing.  It  is  the  rule  that  gives  to  the  nation  owning 
the  banks  of  a  stream,  and  as  appurtenant  to  that  ownership,  the 
delta  region  found  at  its  mouth.  This  rule  is  not  at  all  based  on  the 
idea  that  the  soil  of  these  delta  formations  has  been  carried  from 
the  banks  of  the  river  itself,  or  from  other  lands  owned  by  the 
nation  claiming  the  delta  region.  Indeed,  when  it  can  be  posi- 
tively shown  that  the  alluvion  has  been  torn  from  one  bank  and 
deposited  upon  the  other,  the  rule  is  still  applied.     Between  indi- 


Y34  NATIONAL  SECURITY. 

vidual  owners  the  rule  is  based  upon  considerations  relating  to 
land  boundaries;  but,  as  applied  to  a  nation,  it  is  rather  a  specific 
application  of  the  rule  of  security.  It  is  the  relation  of  these  delta 
regions  to  the  control  of  the  mouth  of  the  river,  and  to  the  security 
of  the  settlements  on  the  river,  that  fixes  their  status. 

It  is  wholly  immaterial  where  the  detritus  came  from— whether 
down  the  Orinoco,  or  down  the  Essequibo  and  by  the  ocean  cur- 
rents to  the  mouth  of  the  former  river.  These  deposits  are  caused 
by  a  loss  of  velocity  in  the  current  carrying  the  silt.  The  Onnoco 
loses  its  flow  in  the  sea  and  drops  its  silt.  It  also  checks  and  de- 
flects the  flow  of  the  ocean  currents  across  its  mouth  towards  the 
west,  and  causes  that  current  to  drop  some  of  its  silt  at  points  to 
the  eastward  of  the  main  channel  of  the  Orinoco.  As  the  delta 
formation  grew,  this  effect  would  be  increased.  The  coast  region 
to  the  east  of  the  Boca  de  Navios,  as  far  as  Cape  Nassau,  is  undenia- 
bly alluvion;  and  if,  by  the  deposit  of  silt  coming  from  the  east — 
whether  influenced  by  the  Orinoco  or  not — the  Barima  and  the 
Waini  now  communicate  with  the  Orinoco,  while  maintaining, 
through  the  Mora  passage,  another  entrance  to  the  sea,  the  delta 
region  has  become  one. 

Boats  may  pass  from  the  Orinoco  through  the  Barima  and  the 
Waini  to  the  sea  by  natural  channels.  The  tide  flows  in  and  out 
of  the  Barima,  at  the  Orinoco  and  at  the  Mora  passage.  At  the 
time  of  the  discovery  of  Guiana,  this  inland  water  way  from 
the  Moruca  was  the  safest  and  quickest  route  for  boats  between 
the  Essequibo  and  the  Orinoco.  Other  mouths  of  the  Orinoco 
flowing  through  the  delta  towards  the  Gulf  of  Paria,  or  towards 
Trinidad,  bore  independent  names,  just  as  these  do,  and  were 
similarly  used  as  outlets  to  the  west.  In  whatever  manner, 
then,  as  a  scientific  problem,  it  came  about,  we  find  the  Waini 
and  the  Barima  to  be  parts  of  the  delta  water  system  of  the 
Orinoco.  The  mouth  of  a  stream  is  "  where  the  points  of  the 
coast  project  no  further." 


I 


NATIONAL  SECURITY.  ^735 

Lord  Stovvell,  in  Twee  Gebroeden  (3  Rob.,  34),  says: 

"The  embouchure  or  mouth  of  a  river  is  that  spot  where  the  river 
enters  the  open  space  to  which  the  sea  flows,  and  where  the  points  of  the 
coast  project  no  further. " 

The  rule  of  law  applicable  to  delta  regions  is  thus  stated  by 
Twiss  (Law  of  Nations,  Sec.  131): 

"  Upon  like  considerations  of  security,  islands  which  have  been  formed 
by  the  accumulation  of  mud  at  the  mouth  of  a  river,  and  which  keep  sentinel 
as  it  were  over  the  approaches  to  the  mainland,  are  regarded  as  necessary 
appendages  of  the  coast  on  which  they  border  and  from  which  they  are 
formed. " 

The  rule  is  rested  by  this  author  upon  considerations  of  secur- 
ity. The  relations  of  these  islands  to  the  river  mouth,  as  we  find 
them,  is  the  determining  thing.  How  they  came  there  is  wholly 
unimportant  to  the  jurist.  Lord  Stowell's  opinion  in  The  Anna  (3 
Ch.  Robinson,  395)  makes  this  clear. 

''Consider,"  he  says,  in  the  case  of  certain  islands  at  the  en- 
trance of  the  river  Mississippi,  "  what  the  consequences  would  be, 
if  lands  of  this  description  were  not  considered  as  appendant  to 
the  mainland  and  as  comprised  within  the  bounds  of  territory.  If 
they  do  not  belong  to  the  United  States  of  America,  any  other 
Power  may  occupy  them;  they  might  be  embanked  and  fortified. 
What  a  thorn  would  this  be  in  the  side  of  America!  It  is  physi- 
cally possible  at  least  that  they  might  be  so  occupied  by  European 
'  nations  and  then  the  command  of  the  river  w^ould  be  no  longer  in 
America,  but  in  such  settlements.  The  possibility  of  such  a  con- 
sequence is  enough  to  expose  the  fallacy  of  any  arguments  that 
are  addressed  to  show  that  these  islands  are  not  to  be  considered  as 
part  of  the  territory  of  America." 

The  delta  regions  on  the  east  of  Boca  de  Navios,  in  the  control  of 
another  nation,  would  be  a  thorn  in  the  side  of  the  nation  owning 
the  Orinoco  river;  would  give  a  sentry  post  to  an  enemy  quite  as 
much  as  those  on  the  west.  There  is  no  part  of  the  entire  delta 
region  of  the  Orinoco  to  which  the  reasoning  applies  more  strongly 


■ 


Y36  NATIONAL  SECURITY. 

than  to  the  Waini-Barima  region.  Indeed,  if  we  give  to  Great 
Britain  this  region,  the  guards  of  the  Orinoco  mouth  might  almost 
as  well  be  withdrawn;  for  she  will  have  secured  a  water  inlet 
that  isolates  them.  The  reason  of  this  rule  certainly  includes 
as  delta  islands  all  of  the  lands  on  the  ocean  side  of  any  water- 
way flowing  through  the  alluvion,  that  may  be  entered  from  the 
main  river  and  followed  to  the  sea. 

The  British  interest  in  this  territory  is  not  its  value  for  settle- 
ment, or  as  necessary  to  the  defense  of  their  settlements,  but  as 
giving  them  control  of  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco,  the  basin  of 
which  is,  and  always  has  been,  Spanish. 

Schomburgk  has  this  to  say  of  this  region  (B.  C,  VII,  p.  34): 

*'  The  peculiar  formation  of  the  fluvial  system  of  the  coastland  between 
the  Barima  and  the  Essequibo  admits  an  inland  navigation,  in  punts  and 
barges,  to  Richmond  Estate,  on  the  Arabisi  Coast  of  the  Essequibo,  which 
with  a  few  improvements  might  vie  with  any  of  the  interior  canals  of 
England." 

That  is  to  say,  the  possession  of  this  '*  fluvial  system  "  would 
CvStablish  at  least  a  joint  use  and  control  of  the  Orinoco,  and  with 
Barima  Point  would  dominate  that  river.  This  brings  the  river 
fully  within  the  reasoning  of  Twiss  and  of  Lord  Stowell. 

These  rules  based  upon  the  right  of  the  first  settler  to  be  secure 
in  his  possessions  are  controlling.  All  other  rules,  based  upon 
convenience  and  kindred  considerations,  are  in  abeyance  until 
there  has  been  set  apart  to  the  first  comer  all  places  that  may  be 
reasonably  necessary  to  his  present  and  prospective  security.  We 
cannot  for  a  moment  doubt  that  a  stretch  of  country  to  the  east 
of  the  Orinoco,  extending  on  the  coast  to  a  point  that  will  in- 
clude the  water  sheds  of  all  streams  entering  the  Orinoco,  was 
reasonably  necessary  to  the  security  of  the  Spanish  settlements  on 
the  Orinoco.  The  question  of  the  line  of  safety,  in  the  interior, 
involves  a  consideration  of  the  Spanish  interior  settlements, 
which  we  do  not  enter  upon  here. 


CHAPTER  XIX, 

WATERSHED. 

Great  Britain  puts  forward  a  claim  to  the  constructive  posses- 
sion of  the  whole  watershed  of  the  Essequibo,  inchiding  its  great 
tributaries,  the  Mazaruni  and  the  Cuyuni.  The  area  of  this  basin, 
treating  it  as  one,  is  about  67,000  square  miles.  We  are  not 
definitely  informed  as  to  when  it  is  claimed  this  title  attached, 
though  that  date  is  a  very  important  factor  in  determining 
whether  it  ever  attached.  These  extracts  from  the  British  Case 
(p.  161)  perhaps  give  us  the  scope  of  the  British  contention,  as 
first  propounded: 

"It  is  not  disputed  that  the  Dutch  and  the  British  have  for  centuries 
been  in  full  possession  of  a  very  considerable  territory  on  both  sides  of  the 
Essequibo  below  the  point  where  it  is  joined  by  the  Massaruni.  It  is  sub- 
mitted that,  according  to  every  principle  of  international  law,  this  carries 
with  it  the  right  to  the  whole  basin  of  the  Essequibo  and  its  tributaries, 
except  in  so  far  as  any  portion  of  that  basin  may  have  been  occupied  by 
another  Power. 

"The  Power  in  control  of  so  large  an  extent  of  territory  round  the 
lower  course  of  a  river  such  as  the  Essequibo,  to  which  no  other  Power  has 
ever  had  any  access,  and  where  no  dominion  other  than  that  exercised  by 
the  Dutch  and  the  British  has  ever  existed,  has  a  primd  facie  right  to  the 
whole  of  the  river  basin.  Such  right  can  only  be  rebutted  by  proof  of 
actual  occupation  by  another  Power." 

And  again: 

"The  title  of  the  British  to  the  basin  of  the  Essequibo  and  its  tribut- 
aries is  greatly  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  the  only  permanent  means  of 
access  to  by  far  the  greater  part  of  the  upper  portion  of  this  basin  is  by 
these  streams  themselves.  The  Power  in  control  of  the  lower  portion  of 
the  Essequibo  therefore  commands  the  whole  of  the  basin  of  that  river  and 
its  tributaries." 

The  first  of  these  paragraphs  seems  to  make  the  river  basin 
attendant  upon  settlements  on  the  lower  tide  water  banks  of 
the  Essequibo,  without  any  further  occupation  of  the    coast— 


/y38  WATERSHED. 

provided  "  considerable  territory  on  both  sides  "  of  the  river  is 
occupied.  This  constructive  extension  of  the  Hmits  of  the  river 
mouth  settlements  is  not  put  upon  the  fact  that  the  river  is 
the  means  of  access  to  the  interior  region,  but  is,  we  are  told, 
'•strengthened"  by  that  fact.  And  finally  this  watershed  rule, 
it  is  said,  can  only  be  stayed  in  its  operation  by  a  prior  "actual 
occupation  by  another  Power."  We  answer:  There  is  no  prin- 
ciple of  international  law  that  gives  to  such  a  tidewater,  river- 
mouth  settlement,  as  the  Dutch  had  at  Essequibo,  the  wide 
constructive  effect  here  claimed;  and,  if  there  were,  a  good 
prior  constructive  occupation  by  another  nation  would  prevent 
its  operation  just  as  effectually  as  a  prior  actual  occupation. 

The  rules  of  constructive  occupation  must  take  effect  in  their 
order,  and  if  by  any  other  such  rule  of  lavr  the  river  basin,  or  any 
part  of  it,  had  been  assigned  to  Spain  before  the  Dutch  came  to 
Essequibo,  she  could  not  be  deprived  of  it  by  any  mere  construct- 
ive effect  given  to  the  Dutch  settlement. 

The  watershed  or  coast  settlement  theory  is  not  capable  of  a 
partial  application.  It  is  put  upon  the  theory  that  the  river  is  the 
channel  of  communication  with  these  interior  lands  — and  that 
this  fact  creates  a  natural  geographical  unit  that  is  to  be  pre- 
served. But  if  the  upper  stretches  of  the  river  are  first  occupied, 
whether  actually  or  constructively,  the  unity  of  the  tract,  and  the 
reason  of  the  alleged  rule,  can  only  be  preserved  by  giving  the 
mouth  to  the  fii-st  appropriator  of  any  part  of  the  basin.  And,  as 
this  rule  can  give  only  a  constructive  occupation,  if  any  other 
rule— such  as  the  rule  of  discovery,  or  of  the  security  and  in- 
tegrity of  a  settlement-  has  already  taken  effect  in  the  basin, 
the  first  cannot  be  used  at  all. 

And  further  the  British  Case  impliedly  admits  that  the  water- 
shed  rule  here  put  forward  did  not  operate  until  "a  very  consid- 
erable territory  on  both  sides  of  the  Essequibo  below  the  point 
where  it  is  joined  by  the  Massaruni "  had  been  occupied  by  the 
Dutch. 


WATERSHED.  Y39 

When  did  the  Dutch  settlement  on  the  Essequibo  acquire  the 
extent  necessary,  according  to  the  British  contention,  to  bring 
into  operation  this  watershed  theory?  Great  Britain  should  have 
assigned  a  date,  or  at  least  an  approximate  one.  Of  the  occu- 
pation of  the  Dutch  on  the  Essequibo  in  1648,  Professor  Burr 
says: 

"  Such  are  our  scanty  materials  for  a  notion  of  the  character  and  limits 
of  the  Dutch  colony  on  the  Essequibo  at  the  close  of  the  long  war  witli 
Spain.  So  far  as  they  enable  us  to  infer,  it  was  a  body  of  two  or  three 
dozen  unmarried  employes  of  the  West  India  Company,  housed  in  a  fort  at 
the  confluence  of  the  Cuyuni  and  Mazaruni  with  the  Essequibo,  and 
engaged  in  traffic  with  the  Indians  for  the  dyes  of  the  forest.  Agriculture, 
save  for  the  food  supply  of  this  garrison,  there  is  little  reason  for  supposing. 
Of  tobacco  or  of  sugar  one  hears  nothing  after  the  mention  of  the  specimens 
received  in  the  time  of  Jan  van  der  Goes.  The  first  sugar  mill  on  the  river 
seems  to  have  been  established  in  1664;  and  at  that  date  there  was  as  yet 
no  provision  for  the  registry  of  lands  in  Essequibo.  This  purely  com- 
mercial character  of  the  Essequibo  establishment  is  the  more  striking 
because  the  other  Dutch  colonies  on  the  coast,  both  those  of  the  patroons 
and  those  planted  directly  by  the  Company,  had  all  been  of  settlers.  .  .  . 
Of  outposts  there  is  thus  far  no  mention. 

"  Such  as  it  was,  the  post  on  the  Essequibo  remained  in  1648,  as  it  had 
always  been,  the  westernmost  establishment  of  the  Dutch  on  this  coast,  and 
was  now,  with  the  exception  of  Berbice,  their  only  Guiana  colony."  (V. 
C.-C,  vol.  ii,  pp.  74-75.) 

Surely  this  was  not  the  occupation  of  "a  very  considerable 
territory  on  both  sides  of  the  Essequibo." 

In  the  British  Counter-Case  (p.  136,  par.  10)  we  have  what 
seems  to  be  a  greatly  modified  statement  of  the  watershed  rule. 
To  the  proposition  of  the  Venezuelan  case  that,  '*  Ownership  of  the 
mouth  of  a  river  does  not,  of  itself,  give  title  to  the  watershed," 
Great  Britain  answers:  "This  proposition  is  too  narrowly  stated. 
Ownership  and  control  of  the  course  of  navigation  of  a  river  may 
in  some  instances  give  title  to  the  w^atershed."  This  statement  of 
the  rule  would  deny  to  the  Dutch  and  to  the  British  the  Cuyuni 
basin,  for  two  reasons,  first  because  the  Essequibo  and  the  Cuyuni 


740    .  WATERSHED. 

were  not  ways  of  commerce,  and,  second,  if  they  were,  neither  the 
Dutch  nor  EngHsh  ever  controlled  the  course  of  navigation.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  rule  as  stated  would  give  to  Venezuela  the 
watershed  of  the  Orinoco;  for  Spain  first,  and  Venezuela  after  her, 
did  own  and  control  the  course  of  navigation  of  that  river  from 
the  date  of  its  discovery.  The  appeal  of  Great  Britain's  representa- 
tive in  ISSfi  to  Venezuela  for  the  erection  of  a  light  house  at 
Barima,  indubitably  proves  that  this  ancient  control  was  main- 
tained and  acknowledged.  Unless  it  can  be  shown  that  the  Ama- 
cura  and  the  Barima  are  parts  of  another  watershed,  the  rule  as 
stated  by  Great  Britain  would  assign  those  rivers  to  Venezuela. 

We  will  now  consider  briefly  the  law  applicable  to  river-mouth 
settlements.  It  has  happened  that  Great  Britain,  in  her  boundary 
contentions,  has  several  times  faced  the  question  we  are  now  con- 
sidering, and  in  every  case  in  America,  so  far  as  we  now  recall, 
she  has  defended  and  secured  territorial  limits  that  were  utterly 
antagonistic  to  the  rule  she  now  puts  forward.  In  the  cases  of 
the  St.  Lawrence,  the  Mississippi  and  the  Columbia  Rivers  in 
North  America,  Great  Britain  did  not  hold  the  mouths  of  those 
streams,  and  so  did  not  concede  to  the  river-mouth  settlements 
the  constructive  hmits  she  now  claims  for  Essequibo;  notwith- 
standing that,  in  the  cases  of  the  St.  Lawrence  and  of  the  Missis- 
sippi, France  was  the  discoverer  of  those  rivei-s,  had  fully  explored 
them,  had  occupied  the  coast  near  their  mouths,  and  had  planted  ; 
posts  in  the  interior. 

In  the  case  of  the  Columbia,  the  river  had  been  discovered  by 
an  American,  entered  from  the  sea,  and  a  settlement  made  at  the 
mouth.    In  all  of  these  ca«es  Great  Britain  claimed  and  appropri- 
ated a  large  share  of  the  drainage  basins  of  these  rivers.     In  the 
case  of  the  Mississippi  Valley,  to  do  this  she  passed  beyond  the  head    ^ 
waters  of  the  Atlantic  rivers,  over  a  high  and  continuous  nioun-   ii 
tarn  barrier,  that  separated  the  drainage  basins,  and  claimed  and   | 
secured  that  immense  and  fertile  section  of  the  Mississippi  Valley   I 
lying  east  of  that  river.    All  of  these  rivers,  especially  the  St.   j 


WATERSHED.  Y41 

Lawrence  and  Mississippi,  were  great  navigable  waterways,  afford- 
ing, in  that  period,  the  only  natural  channels  of  commerce 
available  to  the  interior.  If  there  has  been  any  case  where  Great 
Britain  has,  against  her  interests,  allowed  to  any  other  power  the 
rule  she  asserts  here,  we  have  not  found  it.  We  will  not  attempt 
to  exhibit  the  details  of  the  Oregon  controversy,  but  will  present 
from  the  English  law^  writers  enough  to  show  the  position  taken 
by  Great  Britain. 

Discussing  the  geographical  extent  of  titles,  and  especially  the 
doctrine  of  watershed,  Westlake  (Int.  Law,  p.  ITI),  says: 

"  If  that  doctrine  were  adopted  in  its  fullest  extent  it  would  lead  to 
the  conclusion  that  France,  while  she  held  Canada  and  Louisiana,  was 
entitled  to  all  the  basins  of  the  St.  Lawrence  and  Mississippi,  except  such 
portions  of  the  former  as  were  comprised  within  the  settled  area  of  the 
English  colonies,  and  such  portions  of  the  latter  as  were  well  understood 
to  belong  to  Mexico.  But  during  the  negotiations  with  England  in  1761 
France  repudiated  any  such  claim,  and  proposed  that  the  Indians  *  between 
Canada  and  Louisiana,  as  also  between  Virginia  and  Louisiana,  should  be 
considered  as  neutral  nations,  independent  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  two 
crowns,  and  serve  as  a  barrier  between  them '  (Twiss,  Oregon  Question, 
p.  307)." 

Twiss  (Oregon  Question,  p.  245)  states  that  the  United  States 

tad  before  formulated  this  rule: 
"  That  whenever  any  European  nation  takes  possession  of  any  extent  of 
sea-coast,  that  possession  is  understood  as  extending  into  the  interior 
country  to  the  sources  of  the  Rivers  emptying  within  that  coast,  to  all 
their  branches  and  the  country  they  cover,  and  to  give  it  a  right  in  exclu- 
sion of  all  other  nations  to  the  same." 

He  says  the  reason  of  the  rule  was  thus  stated  by  Pinckney 
and  Monroe: 

*'  Nature  seems  to  have  destined  a  range  of  territory  so  described  for  the 
same  society,  to  have  connected  its  several  parts  together  by  the  ties  of  a 
common  interest  and  to  have  detached  them  from  others." 

And  again  (p.  247): 

"  Because  their  settlements  bar  the  approach  to  the  interior  country  and 
other  nations  can  have  no  right  of  way  across  the  settlements  of  inde- 
pendent nations." 


742 


WATERSHED. 


Twiss  {ib.,  148)  quotes  Mr.  Rush  as  saying,  in  1824: 
"I  asserted  that  a  nation  discovering  a  country,  by  entering  the  mouth 
of  its  principal  river  at  the  sea  coast,  must  necessarily  be  allowed  to  claim 
and  hold  as  great  an  extent  of  the  interior  country  as  was  described  by  the 
course  of  such  principal  river  and  its  tributary  streams." 

To  this,  Twiss  says,  "Great  Britain  formally  entered  her  dis- 
sent," "denying  that  such  a  principle  or  usage  had  ever  been 
recognized  amongst  the  nations  of  Europe,  or  that  the  expedition 
of  Captain  Gray,  being  one  of  a  purely  mercantile  character,  was 
entitled  to  carry  with  it  such  important  national  consequences. 
In  the  subsequent  discussions  of  1826-7,  Great  Britain  considered 
it  equally  due  to  herself  and  to  other  powers  to  renew  her  protest 
against  the  doctrine  of  the  United  States,  whilst  on  the  other 
hand  the  United  States  continued  to  maintain  that  Gray's  dis- 
covery of  the  Columbia  river  gave,  by  the  acknowledged  law  and 
usage  of  nations,  a  right  to  the  whole  country  drained  by  that 
river  and  its  tributary  streams." 

The  author  then  states  his  own  views  thus  {id.^  p.  279): 

"The  principles  involved  in  this  position  seems  to  be  that  the  discoverer 
of  a  mouth  of  a  river  is  entitled  to  the  exclusive  use  of  the  river;  and  the 
exclusive  use  of  the  river  entitles  him  to  the  property  of  its  banks.  This 
is  an  inversion  of  the  ordinary  principles  of  natural  law,  which  regards 
rivers  and  lakes  as  appendages  to  a  territory,  the  use  of  which  is  necessary 
for  the  perfect  enjoyment  of  the  territory,  and  rights  of  property  in  them 
only  as  acquired  through  rights  of  property  in  the  banks." 

And  again  {id.,  p.  281): 

"As  to  the  reasonableness  of  the  rule,  if  Mr.  Rush  meant  that  rivers 
were  the  natural  and  most  convenient  boundaries  of  territories,  this  proposi- 
tion would  command  a  ready  assent.  But  the  result  of  the  principle  which 
ho  set  up  as  to  the  extent  of  the  discovery,  would  be  to  make  the  high-lands 
and  not  the  water  courses  the  territorial  limits." 

Phillimore,  writing  of  the  Oregon  Case  (,Int.  Law,  3d  ed.,  i, 
§887)  says: 

"The  United  States  claimed  that  a  nation  discovering  a  country,  by 
onteringihe  mouth  of  its  principal  river  at  the  sea-coast,  must  necessarily  be 


WATERSHED.  743 

allowed  to  claim  and  hold  as  great  an  extent  of  the  interior  country  as  was 
described  by  the  course  of  such  principal  river  and  its  tributary  streams." 
But,  he  says: 

"This  proposition  was  strenuously  denied  by  Great  Britain  upon  various 
grounds : 

1.  That  no  such  right  accrued  at  all  to  mere  discovery. 

Great  Britain  '  was  yet  to  be  informe<l,'  she  said,  '  under  what  principles 
or  usage,  among  the  nations  of  Europe,  his  having  first  entered  or  dis- 
covered the  mouth  of  the  Eiver  Columbia,  admitting  this  to  have  been  the 
fact,  was  to  carry  after  it  such  a  portion  of  the  interior  country  as  was 
alleged.'" 

In  his  comments  upon  the  position  assumed  by  the  United 
States,  Phillimore  says  (ed.,  p.  337): 

"  If  the  circumstances  had  been  these,  viz.  that  an  actual  settlement  had 
been  grafted  upon  a  discovery  made  by  an  authorized  public  officer  of  a 
nation  at  the  mouth  of  a  river,  the  law  would  not  have  been  unreasonably 
applied." 

It  seems,  then,  that  this  writer  holds  that  the  benefit  of  this 
rule  cannot  be  claimed  unless  settlement  has  been  "  grafted  upon 
a  discovery,"  and  that  in  the  case  of  a  discoverer  it  rests  upon 
the  theory  that  the  basin  is  necessary  to  the  security  and  integrity 
of  the  settlement.  In  the  case  in  hearing,  however,  the  rule  is 
set  up  by  a  second  comer  against  the  discoverer,  and  in  a  way  to 
destroy  the  security  and  integrity  of  the  discoverer's  settlements, 
and  to  cut  him  off  from  the  occupancy  of  the  region  that  was 
the  objective  point  of  his  first  occupation. 

In  the  Oregon  Case  Great  Britain  asserted  that  the  United 
States  could  not  claim  a  title  by  discovery,  because  Captain  Gray, 
who  made    the  discovery  of  the  Columbia   river,  was  a  mere 


J»rivate  navigator 


Hall  (Int.  Law,  4  ed.,  p.  Ill),  speaking  of  this  matter,  says: 
"  It  has  been  maintained,  but  it  can  hardly  be  conceded,  that  the  whole 
of  a  large  river  basin  is  so  attendant  upon  the  land  in  the  immediate  neigh- 
bourhood of  its  outlet  that  property  in  it  is  acquired  by  merely  holding  a 
fort  or  settlement  at  the  mouth  of  the  river  without  also  holding  lands 
any  distance  on  either  side." 


^^^  WATERSHED. 

This  writer  further  holds  that,  even  where  there  is  an  extended 
coast  liolding,  the  extent  of  coast  must  bear  some  reasonable  pro- 
portion to  the  territory  which  is  claimed  in  virtue  of  its  pos- 
session. 

Let  us  apply  this  test  to  the  case  at  bar;  and,  for  that  purpose, 
let  us  assume  that  the  Dutch  coast  occupation  extended  all  the 
way  from  the  mouth  of  the  Essequibo  to  the  mouth  of  the  Monica, 
a  distance  of  some  40  miles.  As  a  matter  of  fact  Dutch  occupa- 
tion never  attained  any  such  proportions,  but  had  it  done  so,  those 
40  miles  of  coast  settlement  would,  according  to  the  present  British 
pretensions,  have  represented  an  interior  constructive  occupation 
of  some  67,000  square  miles;  or,  in  other  words,  for  each  mile  of 
actual  coast  settlement  there  would  have  been  1,700  square  miles 
of  constructive  occupation.  If  this  disproportion  should  seem  great, 
what  shall  be  said  when  it  is  remembered  that  for  almost  a  century 
after  the  Treaty  of  Munster,  except  for  two  short  lived  settlements 
on  the  Pomeroon,  from  1658  to  1665,  and  from  1686  to  1689,  such 
Dutch  occupation  as  there  was  on  the  coast  west  of  the  Essequibo 
was  limited  to  a  trading  post,  or  else  a  man  shelter,  located  at 
times  on  the  Pomeroon  and  at  times  on  the  Moruca  or  Waquepo? 
Not  until  near  the  close  of  the  last  century  did  settlement  extend 
west  along  the  Arabian  Coast  to  near  the  Pomeroon;  and,  by  that 
time  Spain  had  been  for  already  three-quarters  of  a  century  in  the 
actual  occupation  of  the  Cuyuni,  and  of  many  of  its  tributary 
streams. 

The  so-called  watershed  theory  has  never,  even  by  its  most  ex- 
travagant advocates,  been  extended  to  apply  to  lateral  frontiers. 
Its  application  is  confined  wholly,  where  it  can  be  applied  at  all, 
to  the  determination  of  interior  limits,  never  to  that  of  lateral 
limits  in  territory  parallel  with  the  coast.  Here  the  attempt  is 
made  not  only  to  apply  it  to  the  headwaters  of  the  Essequibo,  but 
to  rivers  nearly  as  large  as  the  Essequibo  itself,  which  run  at 
right  angles  to  the  latter  and  parallel  with  the  coast,  and,  in  fact, 
rise  almost  on  the  very  banks  of  the  Orinoco.     "  It  can  hardly  be 


WATERSHED.  'j'45 

conceded,"  says  Hall  (Int.  Law,  p.  Ill),  "that  the  whole  of  a 
large  river  basin  is  so  attendant  upon  the  land  in  the  immediate 
neighbourhood  of  its  outlet  that  property  in  it  is  acquired  by  merely 
holding  a  fort  or  settlement  at  the  mouth  of  the  river  without 
also  holding  lands  to  any  distance  on  either  side."  Yet  the  at- 
tempt here  is  made  to  found  possession  of  a  lateral  territory, 
watered  by  a  river  300  miles  long,  by  plantations  that  come  to  an 
end  twelve  miles  from  its  mouth  and  then  are  stopped  by  an  im- 
passable barrier. 

The  Dutch  Ambassador  at  Madrid,  in  making  the  claim  of  the 
West  India  Company  (V.  C.  II,  135),  stated  that  it  was  a  claim 
to  "  the  River  Essequibo,  and  all  the  little  rivers  which  flow  into 
it."  Had  that  been  its  character,  and  had  the  Cuyuni  been  such 
a  stream  as  Capoey  or  Oene,  or  even  as  Supenaam,  the  Spanish 
Government  might  have  thought  it  worthy  of  attention.  As  it 
was,  they  refused  even  to  discuss  it. 

Hall  further  shows  that  the  rule  as  to  water  courses  was  based 
upon  the  fact  that  they  formerly  "were  not  merely  the  most  con- 
venient, they  were  the  necessar}-^  means  of  penetrating  into  the 
interior;  "  and  says  that  in  Africa  railroads  offer  a  better  access, 
iand  that  in  that  region  the  ''  river  basins  are  so  arranged  that  a 
final  division  of  the  continent  could  hardly  be  made  in  accordance 
with  their  boundaries." 

Where,  as  here,  there  is  an  occupation  (whether  it  be  actual  or 
constructive)  of  the  territory  upon  the  upper  banks  of  a  river, 
that  occupation  is  of  a  part  of  the  geographical  unit  called  the 
basin,  and  should  be  taken,  if  the  rule  of  unity  is  observed,  to  be 
an  occupation  of  the  whole.  A  settler  coming  afterwards  to  the 
mouth  cannot  cork  up  the  river.  In  the  cases  of  the  St.  Law- 
rence and  of  the  Mississippi,  the  United  States— and,  in  the  case 
of  the  Columbia,  Great  Britain— asserted  and  secured  the  right  of 
the  settlers  on  the  upper  stretches  of  these  rivers  to  the  free  nav- 
igation thereof  to  the  sea. 


I 


>j^Q  WATERSHED. 

Of  this  rule  Mr.  Twiss  (Oregon  Case,  p.  280)  says: 
"According  to  the  Civil  Law  (flumina  perennia),  as  distinguished  from 
streams  (rivi),  were  deemed  public,  which,  like  the  sea  shore,  all  might  use. 
In  an  analogous  manner,  in  reference  to  great  rivers  flowing  into  the  ocean, 
11  common  use  is  presumed,  unless  an  exclusive  title  can  be  made  out,  either 
from  prescription  or  the  acknowledgement  of  other  states." 

Wheaton  (Int.  Law,  p.  291)  writing  upon  this  subject,  says: 
"The  right  of  navigating,  for  commercial  purposes,  a  river  which  flows 
through  the  territories  of  different  states,  is  common  bo  all  the  nations  in- 
habiting the  different  parts  of  its  banks;  but  this  right  of  innocent  passage 
being  what  the  text  writers  call  an  imperfect  right,  its  exercise  is  necessarily 
modified  by  the  safety  and  convenience  of  the  State  affected  by  it,  and 
can  only  be  effectually  secured  by  mutual  convention  regulating  the  mode 
of  its  exercise." 

Turning  now  to  make  a  brief  application  of  the  law  to  the 
facts,  we  remark  first  that  the  reason  given  for  the  rule  in  the 
cases  where  its  application  has  been  supposed  to  be  allowable, 
shows  that  it  can  have  no  application  here.  The  Essequibo  was 
never  '*  the  necessary  means  of  penetrating  into  the  interior,"  or 
even  the  most  available  means.  In  fact,  by  reason  of  the  numer- 
ous falls  and  rapids  found  in  it,  and  in  the  Cuyuni,  it  was  an  im- 
practicable route  for  any  important  commerce.  The  range  of  low 
mountains  over  which  these  streams  fall  makes  an  interior  basin 
that  is  in  no  proper  sense  a  part  of  the  same  geographical  unit 
with  the  coast. 

It  is  indisputably  true  that  at  the  time  when  Great  Britain 
claims  that  this  great  interior  basin  became  attendant  upon  the 
Dutch  settlements  on  the  Essequibo,  because  it  was  a  part  of  the 
same  geographical  unit,  neither  the  Dutch  nor  any  other  European 
nation  supposed  there  was  any  practicable  route  by  these  rivers  to 
the  great  interior— the  Eldorado.  Berrio  and  his  Spanish  prede- 
cessors, and  Raleigh,  Cabeliau  and  every  other  explorer  and  navi- 
gator, rightly  designated  Santo  Thome,  and  not  Essequibo,  to  be 
the  gateway  of  the  Cuyuni  Basin.  This  route  availed  itself,  for  a 
large  part  of  the  way,  of  the  great  savannahs,  and  found  an  easy 


WATERSHED.  747 

passage  over  the  range;  while  that  from  the  Essequibo  contended, 
from  start  to  finish,  with  dangerous  rapids  and  falls  in  the  river, 
and  an  almost  impenetrable  tropical  forest  on  its  banks. 

That  the  Essequibo  and  Cuyuni  are  not  the  natural  ways  of 
travel  and  commerce  and  settlement,  is  proved  by  the  fact  that 
neither  the  Dutch  nor  British  have  ever  extended  their  settle- 
ments along  them.  These  rivers,  with  their  rapids  and  falls  and 
forest-clad  banks  presented  the  way  of  greatest  resistance  to  set- 
tlement from  the  Essequibo,  and  it  took  the  easier  way  down  the 
river  from  Kykoveral. 

Schomburgk,  who,  in  1841,  passed  down  the  Cuyuni  from  the 
Acarabisi,  and  through  the  gorge  at  the  eastern  corner  of  this 
basin,  just  above  the  confluence  of  the  Cuyuni  and  Essequibo,  de- 
scribes that  point  as  "a  small  range  of  mountains  through  which 
the  river  has  broken  itself  a  passage  "  (B.  C,  VII,  p.  29).  That 
passage  consists  of  a  series  of  cataracts,  by  which  the  river  falls 
two  hundred  feet  in  thirty  or  forty  miles,  and  he  nearly  lost  his 
life  in  passing  them.  Surveyor  Perkins  lost  a  man  here  on  one  of 
his  expeditions,  and  says  (Timehri,  June,  1893)  that  *'  it  has  long 
'•  been  known  as  among  the  most  dangerous,  if  not  the  most 
"  dangerous,  of  all  the  large  rivers  of  British  Guiana." 

This  obstacle  has  stopped  all  progress  of  settlement  in  this  di- 
rection, 

Schomburgk  further  says:  ''But  the  difficulties  which  the 
"  Cuyuni  presents  to  navigation,  and  those  tremendous  falls 
"  which  impede  the  river  in  its  first  day's  ascent,  will,  I  fear, 
"  prove  a  great  obstacle  to  making  the  fertility  of  its  banks 
"  available  to  the  Colony."    (B.  C,  VII,  p.  30.) 

A  description  of  the  country,  published  at  Demerara  in  1843, 
says:  ''A  short  distance  above  their  junction  these  rivers  [Maze- 
"  runi,  Cuyuni  and  Essequibo]  become  impeded  by  rapids,  above 

I"  which  they  are  frequented  only  by  a  few  wandering  Indians." 
(V.  C,  vol.  iii,  p.  406.) 
I 


/^48  WATERSHED. 

Mr.  Henry  I.  Perkins,  F.  R.  G.  S.,  Government  Surveyor, 
says  of  the  Cuyuni  {Timehri,  June,  1893,  p.  75): 

"  It  has  long  been  known  as  among  the  most  dangerous,  if  not  the  most 
dangerous,  of  all  the  larger  rivers  of  British  Guiana,  and  there  are  times 
when  the  height  of  its  waters,  either  above  or  below  a  certain  point,  gives 
it  every  right  to  claim  this  unenviable  notoriety.  My  first  experience  of  it 
was  a  highly  unpleasant  one  in  1887,  when,  with  a  brother  surveyor,  I  spent 
about  four  weeks  journeying  up  and  down  a  portion  of  it,  and  surveying 
placer  claims  on  its  right  bank.  On  this  memorable  occasion  we  lost  two 
boat-hands  from  dysentery,  a  third  dying  on  his  return  to  Georgetown  from 
the  same  disorder,  and  last  but  not  least,  in  coming  down  stream  our  boat 
capsized  at  the  Accaio — the  lowest  fall  in  the  river — where  one  man  was 
drowned  and  everything  was  lost. " 

"  The  Cuyuni  diggings  are  somewhat  unfortunately  situated  as  regards 
the  regular  despatch  of  supplies  to  them;  for  in  the  heavy  rainy  season, 
the  river  becomes  so  rapidly  flooded  and  remains  at  a  dangerous  height  for 
80  long  a  period,  that  it  is  almost  impossible  for  loaded  boats  to  ascend  it." 
{ib.,  p.  81.) 

The  Dutch  Commandeur  wrote,  in  1727,  that  the  river  was 
"  very  dangerous  "  and  that  it  was  not  worth  while  to  attempt 
anything  above  them  (V.  C,  vol.  ii.,  p.  81).  In  1731,  he  wrote 
that  "  The  great  number  of  rocks  which  lie  in  these  two  rivers 
"  [Cuyuni  and  Mazaruni]  and  which  occasion  the  falls  by  reason 
"of  the  strong  stream  rushing  over  them,  .  .  .  where- 
"  fore  it  is  impossible  to  establish  any  plantations  there,  although 
•'  the  soil  is  very  well  fitted  for  it."    (V.  C,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  84-85.) 

Mr.  im  Thurn,in  1880,  speaking  from  personal  knowledge,  says 
that  beyond  the  narrow  cultivated  coast  strip, 

"  is  what  may  be  called  the  timber  tract,  from  which  alone  timber  has  as  yet 
been  remuneratively  brought  to  market.  This  extends  toward  the  interior 
as  far  as  the  lowest  cataracts  on  the  various  rivers.  It  is  at  present  impos- 
sible to  cut  timber  profitably  beyond  the  cataracts,  owing  to  the  difficulty 
of  carrying  it  to  market.    (V.  C,  vol.  iii,  pp.  407-408.) 

And  again: 

"The  two  remaining  tracts  [t.  e.,  above  the  lowest  cataracts]  are  entirely 
uninhabitid  except  by  a  few  widely-scattered  Indians  of  four  or  five  differ- 
ent tribes."    (ib.,  p.  408.) 


WATERSHED.  t^ 

Rodway,  speaking  of  English  efforts,  since  1884,  to  establish 
armed  stations  in  the  disputed  district,  says  (Rodway,  iii,  280): 

"Another  move  in  the  same  direction  was  made  in  1892,  by  establishing 
a  boundary  post  up  the  Cuyuni,  near  its  junction  with  Yuruan.  Except 
for  its  bearing  upon  the  boundary,  this  post  is  quite  useless  and  might  be 
abandoned  if  the  question  were  settled;  under  present  circumstances,  how- 
ever, it  is  highly  desirable  that  it  be  kept  up,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that 
the  police  who  reside  there  have  to  perform  a  very  hazardous  aiid  long  jour- 
ney of  forty  or  fifty  days  to  reach  it,  and  then  are  cut  off  from  all  communi- 
cation until  relieved." 

Mr.  Dixon,  a  recent  visitor  to  this  Yuruan  station,  thus  con- 
trasts the  difficulty  of  reaching  the  centre  of  the  Cuyuni  basin 
from  the  English  settlements,  and  the  ease  with  which  the  same 
point  is  reached  from  the  Oriuoco,  This  explains  why  that  region 
has  been  Spanish  for  three  centuries,  but  has  never  had  a  Dutch 
or  English  settlement  within  its  borders  until  the  recent  armed 
invasion.    He  says: 

"This  made  me,  as  an  Englishman,  feel  considerably  mortified  to  think 
that  it  takes  our  Government  from  five  to  six  weeks  to  reach  their  frontier 
station,  whereas  the  Venezuelan  outpost  was  then  being  put,  and  by  this 
time  probably  is,  in  direct  communication  with  their  capital  by  road  and 
wire.  Also,  whereas  it  costs  our  Government  an  immense  annual  sum  to 
maintain  their  small  number  of  police  at  Yuruan  on  salt  and  tinned  pro- 
visions (sent  all  the  way  from  Bartica  Grove,  on  the  Essequibo,  in  paddled 
boats),  within  200  yards  on  the  other  bank  Kuyuni  is  the  Venezuelan  out- 
post, supplied  with  all  kinds  of  fresh  food  from  their  cattle  farms  and 
plantations."     (Jour.  Royal  Geog.  Soc;  Apr.,  1895,  p.  341.) 

Thus,  not  only  has  Dutch  and  English  settlement  kept  close  to 
the  coast,  but  it  is  the  topography  of  the  country  which  has  kept 
it  there.  The  encircling  rim,  through  which  the  rivers  break  only 
in  cataracts,  is  the  obstacle.  Clearly,  this  constitutes  a  natural 
harrier.  For  over  two  hundred  years  the  settlements  have  never 
passed  and  never  attempted  to  pass  twenty  miles  above  the  con- 
fluence of  these  rivers.  Thus  history  tells  us,  without  a  study  of 
the  topography,  that  there  is  here  a.  natural  barrier. 

Cabeliau,   in    1598— before  the  Dutch    came  to  Essequibo— 


/^50  WATERSHED. 

found  the  Spaniards  building  a  road  towaids  the  interior  from 
Santo  Thome,  with  the  purpose  of  opening  the  interior  basin,  and 
so  informed  the  States  General;  and  that  the  land  of  gold  could 
not  be  reached  without  engaging  the  Spaniards  there.  The 
spread  of  the  Dutch  settlements  was  not  up  the  river  towards  the 
interior.    Their  only  efforts  there  were  for  trade. 

In  the  Case  of  Venezuela  (p.  228,  §  12)  this  proposition  is  stated: 
«  If  a  natural  barrier  exist  between  the  coast  region  and  the  interior, 
that  barrier  will  be  the  boundary  between  the  two." 

To  this  Great  Britain  (C.-C,  p.  136)  responds:  "  As  a  general 
statement  this  proposition  is  admitted." 

It  is  not  necessary  that  this  barrier  should  be  impassable.  It 
is  still  a  barrier,  though  rivers  have  broken  over  it.  The  flow  of 
the  Colorado  through  its  great  canyon  did  not  obliterate  the 
mountain  ranges,  but  rather  emphasized  them.  The  river  broke 
a  way  for  itself,  but  not  for  commerce. 

In  a  report  to  the  West  India  Company  by  E.  D.  Mauraiu- 
Saincterre,  engineer  in  Essequibo,  March  19,  1722,  he  says: 

"  The  ground  is  even  better  above  in  the  rivers  Essequibo,  Mazaruni, 
and  Cuyuni  than  below;  but  because  they  are  full  of  rocks,  falls  and 
islands,  and  much  danger  is  to  be  feared  for  large  sugar  canoes,  this  is  the 
reason  why  up  to  this  time  the  Europeans  have  not  been  willing  to  estib- 
lieh  sugar  plantations  there."     (V.  C,  vol.  ii,  p.  79.) 

In  fact,  the  Dutch  drew  back,  from  their  tirst  and  uppermost: 
plantations,   towards  the  coast.      The   Secretary  in    Essequibo, 
writing  to  the  West  India  Company,  in  1777,  says  (V.  C.  ii,  232): 

"  There  are  several  planters  who  hold  thousands  of  acres  of  laud  which 
are  not  under  cultivation.  For  most  of  the  old  planters,  as  soon  as  the 
lower  lands  were  brought  under  cultivation,  transferred  their  plantations 
which  lay  above  this  fort  or  Flag  Island,  brought  off  all  their  slaves,  mills, 
cattle,  etc.,  and  practically  abandoned  the  old  plantations;  but,  in  order 
nevertlieless  to  retain  their  right,  as  they  fancy,  to  those  upper  lauds,  they 
sent  thither  all  their  old  and  decrepit  slaves,  who  can  be  of  no  use  on  tlie 
new  plantations. 

Thus  one  finds  above  this  island  (which  is  distant  only  one  tide  from 
the  mouth)  not  one  sugar,  coffee  or  cotton  plantations  except  only  that  of 


WATERSHED.  751 

the  ex-Councilor  S.  G.  van  der   Heyden,  situated  a  great  tide  above  this 
island,  at  the  mouths  of  the  two  rivers  Mazaruni  and  Cuyuni. 

In  these  rivers,  likewise,  just  as  in  the  river  of  Essequibo,  properly  so- 
called,  there  can  be  found  not  one  plantation  which  furnishes  any  products 
except  a  little  cassava  bread,  and  this  of  so  slight  importance  as  not  to  de- 
serve mention.  And  this  is  also  the  case  with  the  navigable  creeks  of  Bon- 
nasieke,  Arriwary,  Supinaam,  and  Itteribisie,  each  of  which  has  only  one 
sugar  plantation  at  its  mouth,  and  all  the  other  lands  in  those  creeks  and 
rivers  are  and  remain  uncultivated."     (V.  C,  vol.  ii,  pp.  232-233.) 

What  was  believed  to  be  true,  in  the  earliest  days,  as  to  access 
to  the  Cuyuni  Basin,  is  still  true;  and  if  this  whole  region  was 
British  the  Cuyuni  Basin  would  be  opened  up  from  the  Orinoco 
and  not  from  the  Essequibo. 

It  was  not  true  in  the  early  days  of  Guiana,  nor  is  it  now,  that 
the  possession  of  the  mouth  of  the  Essequibo— even  if  accompanied 
by  a  coast  occupation  to  the  Pomeroon — was  effective  to  cut  off  ac- 
cess to  the  interior  by  Spain.  Spain  found  it  easier  to  reach  the 
Cuyuni  at  the  mouth  of  Acarabisi  creek  from  the  Orinoco  than 
the  Dutch  did  from  the  coast,  and  Great  Britain  has  found  that  at 
the  present  day  the  time  is  shorter  from  the  Orinoco  to  the  ad- 
vanced Venezuelan  posts,  than  from  Essequibo  to  the  British  post 
in  the  same  locality.  The  reason  of  the  rule  by  which  the  river 
basin  is  sometimes  treated  as  appurtenant  to  an  extended  coast 
occupation,  does  not  support  the  British  contention  here.  First, 
because  there  was  no  such  prior  coast  occupation;  and,  second, 
because  the  principle  of  geographical  unity — the  ease  of  access,  the 
closing  of  the  natural  gateway— assigns  the  basin  of  the  Cuyuni 
to  the  Orinoco,  from  which  it  was  first  approached.  The  Cuyuni 
Basin  did  not  (to  use  Phillimore's  words)  "  have  the  occupied  sea- 
board for  its  natural  outlet  to  other  nations." 

As  Martens  has  said  (Int.  Law,  pp.  464-5): 

"  Therefore,  it  cannot  be  established  as  a  principle  as  Bluntschli  does— 
that  the  occupant  has  the  right  to  consider  as  its  domain  not  only  the 
points  effectively   occupied  by  it,  but  moreover  the  whole  territory  that 


I 


752  WATERSHED. 

'according  to  nature'  constitutes,  with  these  points,  an  organic  whole. 
For  example,  according  to  Bluntschli,  a  country  which  has  seized  upon  the 
mouth  of  a  river  is  master  of  its  whole  course, 

*'  The  facts,  however,  may  contradict  the  rules,  and  it  may  happen  that 
no  application  of  these  latter  can  be  made.  It  is  only  necessary  to  bear  in 
mind  that  eflfective  occupation  creates  for  the  occupant  certain  rights  and 
imposes  on  other  states  corresponding  duties." 

In  the  present  case,  if  there  were  any  such  rule  as  that  which 
Bluntschli  advocates,  the  facts  contradict  the  rule,  and  no  appli- 
cation can  be  made.  In  this  case  the  area  of  effective  occupation 
is  determined  both  by  barriers  on  the  one  hand,  and  by  outlets  on 
the  other.  To  apply  a  hard  and  fast  rule,  as  to  river  systems, 
to  the  geographical  facts  presented  by  the  territory  in  dispute 
would  be  to  run  counter  to  the  existing  physical  conditions— con- 
ditions which  negative  the  theory  that  lateral  tributaries  are 
necessarily  an  appurtenance  of  a  settlement  on  the  lowest  waters 
of  the  main  stream. 

But  if  the  rule  would  have  applied  in  case  the  Dutch  and 
Spanish  settlements  had  been  contemporaneous,  and  each  had 
manifested  an  intention  to  occupy  the  new  basin,  its  operation  is 
effectually  prevented  by  the  facts  that  Spain  was  the  first  discov- 
erer, that  her  settlement  had  for  its  avowed  purpose  the  occupa- 
tion of  the  basin,  that  such  occupation  was  reasonably  necessary 
to  the  integrity  and  security  of  her  settlement,  and  that  in  fact 
she  was  the  first  and  the  only  one  to  settle  the  basin.  The 
avowed  object  of  Santo  Thome  and  of  all  the  costly  Spanish  expe- 
ditious into  the  interior  cannot,  in  conscience  or  reason,  be 
defeated  by  a  constructive  effect  to  be  given  to  the  later  Dutch 
settlement.  The  States- General  had  been  told  by  Cabeliau  that 
Spain's  purpose  was  to  occupy  the  interior.  In  fact  there  was  an 
actual  Spanish  occupation  of  a  part  of  the  basin  before  the  Dutch 
occupation  on  the  coast  had  attained  such  proportions  as  to  sup- 
port  any  pretence  of  a  constructive  occupation  of  the  basin. 

The  presence  of  the  Spanish  missions  in  the  Cuyuni  basin,  and 


WATERSHED.  Y63 

their  possible  effect  in  defeating  her  claim  to  the  whole  watershed, 
is  thus  referred  to  in  the  British  Case  (p.  163): 

"Further  to  the  south  the  Imataka  Mountains  and  the  range  of  hills 
constituting  the  water-shed  between  the  tributaries  of  the  Orinoco  and  those 
of  the  Cuyuni  and  Massaruni  form  the  boundary  of  the  river  basin  to 
which  Great  Britain  is  primA  facie  entitled.  But  if  it  be  considered  that 
Venezuela  is  entitled  to  the  region  about  the  Yuruari,  in  which  the  Mission 
stations  were  situate,  the  Schomburgk  line  offers  a  boundary  with  every 
advantage  of  physical  features,  etc." 

We  have  already  seen  the  state  of  the  Esseqiiibo  colony  in 
1648.  It  was  not  until  1658  that  the  Dutch  attempted  to  occupy 
the  Pomeroon.  The  plan  was  a  large  one,  but  the  failure  was 
even  larger;  for,  in  1665,  it  was  destroyed  by  the  English. 

In  1679  the  Commandeur  in  Essequibo  writes: 

"The  river  Pomeroon  also  promises  some  profit;  for,  in  order  to  make 
trial  of  it,  I  sent  thither  in  August  last  one  of  my  soldiers  to  barter  for  an- 
natto  dye.  But  there  lately  came  tidings  of  the  approach  of  a  strong  fleet 
of  Caribs  from  the  Corentyu  with  intent  to  visit  this  river  and  Pomeroon, 
having  perhaps  a  secret  understanding  with  the  Caribs  here  to  make  a  com- 
mon attack  upon  us.  (This  danger,  thank  Providence,  we  have  escaped  ; 
for  I  now  learn  from  Berbice  that  they  long  ago  passed  this  river  on  their 
way  back  from  Barima,  and,  seizing  in  Berbice  an  Indian  boat,  have  gone 
back  to  their  homes  again.)  On  receiving  the  aforesaid  ill  tidings  I  called 
in  to  the  fort  the  above-mentioned  outlier  in  Pomeroon,  both  to  save  him 
from  being  surprised,  along  with  the  Company's  goods,  by  these  savages 
and  to  strengthen  ourselves  in  case  of  attack.  Accordingly  he  came  to  the 
fort  on  the  8th  inst.  with  all  the  goods,  bringing  with  him  a  barrel  of  an- 
natto  dye  which  he  had  there  bought  up.  The  scare  being  now  over,  I 
shall  send  him  back  there  within  four  or  five  weeks  (the  dye  season  not 
fairly  beginning  there  before  that  date) ;  and,  if  the  trade  prospers,  it  would 
not  be  a  bad  idea  to  build  there  a  hut  for  two  or  three  men,  so  that  they 
may  dwell  permanently  among  the  Indians  and  occupy  that  river."  (V.  C, 
vol.  ii,  pp.  37-38.) 

In  1689  the  Commandeur  in  Essequibo  wrote: 
"  In  Pomeroon  the  Company  has  nothing  to  lose  but  a  small  bread  and 
yam  garden,   with   five  or  six  decrepit  negroes,    .    .     .     and  the  whole 
force  there  consists  of  only  nine  or  ten  men."     (V.  C,  vol.  ii,  pp.  59-60.) 


I 


Y54  WATEESHED. 

In  the  same  year  the  post  was  practically  abandoned,  as  ap- 
pears by  this  resolution  of  the  West  India  Company: 

«•  It  was  further  resolved  that  from  the  colony  of  Pomeroon  shall  be 
removed  whatever  has  been  brought  thither  on  behalf  of  the  company, 
both  the  employees  and  the  slaves  and  other  commodities,  there  being  left 
there  only  three  men  with  a  flag  for  the  maintenance  of  the  company's 
possession  at  the  aforesaid  place,  and  that  the  aforesaid  employees  and 
commodities  be  transported  to  Essequibo  in  order  there  to  be  employed  for 
the  service  of  the  Company."    (V.  C,  vol.  ii,  p.  62.) 

The  condition  of  things  in  1-^90  is  told  with  particularity  in 
the  report  of  Commissioners  Sirtema  van  Grovestins  and  Boey: 

"The  river  of  Essequibo  is  cultivated  on  the  eastern  side  from  Bourassiri 
to  Bonnasigue,  and  on  the  western  side  from  the  Toeloekaboeka  to  the 
Supinaam  Creek,  being  a  distance  of  nine  thousand  six  hundred  rods. 
However,  many  more  lands  here  could  be  brought  under  cultivation  if  the 
vicinity  of  the  river  Orinoco  did  not  prevent  it,  for  the  Spaniards  there 
sometimes  come  with  armed  boats,  called  lances  [lanchas],  as  far  as 
Moruca  and  by  force  carry  away  the  Indians  who  dwell  there,  enslaving 
them,  while  on  the  other  hand  our  negro  slaves,  when  they  run  away,  be- 
take themselves  to  Orinoco,  where  they  are  proclaimed  free. 

The  colonies  of  Demerara  and  Essequibo  therefore  form  a  stretch  of 
twenty-four  [Dutch]  miles  aXong  the  coast  of  Guiana;  and,  if  means  could 
be  found  to  facilitate  the  inland  communication  by  appropriate  canals 
issuing  into  the  rivers,  both  for  the  transportation  of  products  and  for  the 
drainage  of  the  lands,  this  would  increase  incalculably  the  land  fit  for 
cultivation.     (V.  0.,  vol.  ii,  p.  243.) 

The  noticeable  things  here  are,  that  the  Spaniards  on  the  Orinoco 
were  asserting  by  armed  expeditions  the  ownership  of  Pomeroon; 
that  by  reason  of  this  the  Dutch  could  not  extend  their  settle- 
ments to  that  region,  and  that  Demerara  and  Essequibo  combined 
only  occupied  "twenty-four  Dutch  miles  along  the  coast  of 
Guiana." 

Now,  long  before  this  time  the  Spaniards  had  established  many 
missions  in  the  watershed  of  the  Cuyuni,  and  had  asserted  and 
maintained  a  mihtary  control  throughout  that  region. 


WATERSHED.  'J'SS 

Spanish  military  occupation  and  surveillance  of  the  lower 
Cuyuni  resulted,  in  1772,  in  the  final  abandonment  of  the  last 
Dutch  post  in  that  river,  three  days'  journey  from  the  Dutch  fort. 

We  conclude  this  discussion  with  the  remark  that  Great 
Britain  is  not  only  asserting  here  a  doctrine,  as  to  river  mouth 
settlements,  the  reverse  of  that  maintained  by  her  in  the  Oregon 
case,  but  is  in  the  case  now  at  bar  denying  to  Venezuela  the  benefit 
of  the  alleged  rule,  while  claiming  it  in  her  own  behalf.  Spain  held 
the  Orinoco,  not  constructively  but  actually.  In  the  language  of  the 
British  Counter-Case  (p.  28):  "The  Spaniards  entered,  explored, 
settled  and  effectively  defended  the  Orinoco."  The  occupation  of 
the  Orinoco  and  of  the  Essequibo  present  two  very  different 
cases.  The  former  was  "  entered,  explored,  settled  and  effec- 
tively defended"  by  Spain.  Of  Essequibo  and  the  Dutch  these 
things  cannot  be  said.  If  the  Orinoco  was  Spain's — if  she  owned 
both  its  banks,  from  mouth  to  source,  as  she  did— then  a  very 
mild  and  reasonable  application  of  the  watershed  theory  would 
give  her  the  tributary  streams— the  Waini,  the  Barima  and  the 
Amacura.  Her  acknowledged  dominion  over  the  main  stream 
could  not  be  maintained  without  these.  In  the  case  of  the  Esse- 
quibo, Great  Britain  seeks  to  appropriate  the  main  stream  and  all 
its  tributaries  by  mere  construction,  and  that  apparently  before 
any  Dutchman  had  passed  above  the  tide  limit.  And  yet,  admit- 
ting Spain's  actual,  effective  dominion  of  the  Orinoco,  she  denies 
to  Spain  two  of  its  tributaries  and  seeks  to  appropriate  by  the 
seizure  of  Barima  Point  the  command  of  the  Orinoco  itself. 


^ 


CHAPTER  XX, 

MIDDLE  DISTANCE  AND  NATURAL  BOUNDARIES, 

While  no  definite  use  has  been  made  here,  so  far  as  we  recall, 
by  Great  Britain  of  what  is  called  the  rule  of  the  middle  distance, 
it  will  not  be  amiss  to  briefly  to  state  the  reason  and  limits  of  the 
rule.  It  is  not  a  mere  rule  of  compromise— the  splitting  of  the  dif- 
ference—and can  have  no  application  to  any  case  where  there  is  a 
line  of  right.  This  great  Tribunal  is  organized  to  find  the  line  of 
right,  and  is  required  to  establish  it  when  found.  It  cannot  omit 
to  do  either  of  these  things.  It  cannot,  without  finding  the  line 
of  right,  fix  upon  a  middle  line;  nor,  after  finding  the  true 
boundary,  give  to  one  nation  that  which  it  has  found  belonged 
to  another.  Before  the  rule  of  the  middle  distance  can  be 
used,  it  must  be  found  that  there  is  no  line  of  right;  that 
neither  party  has  a  superior  right  to  the  whole  or  any  deter- 
minate part  of  the  disputed  territory.  In  that  case  the  middle 
distance  is  not  the  splitting  of  a  difference,  but  the  nearest  possi- 
ble ascertainment  of  the  line  of  right.  It  proceeds  upon  the 
theory  that  there  is  no  better  right  to  any  part  of  the  territory  in 
dispute.  Neither  party  admits,  or  even  suggests  that  we  have 
such  a  case  here.  In  the  discussion  between  Spain  and  the 
United  States,  as  to  the  western  boundary  of  Louisiana,  the 
former  rested  the  suggestion  of  the  middle  distance  upon  the 
theory  that  two  nations  had  made  discoveries  and  settlements  at 
some  distance  from  each  other,  and  that  neither  had  a  superior 
claim  to  the  territory  in  controversy.  In  the  case  at  bar  Spain 
only  has  the  discoverer's  title,  while  that  of  the  Dutch  rests  upon 
conquest,  treaty,  prescription,  or  an  alleged  abandonment  of  the 
discoverer's  title.     But  if,  in  any  case  of  a  disputed  boundary,  the 

I  middle  distance  is  to  be  applied  as  a  basis  of  compromise,   it 
I 


758  MIDDLE  DISTANCE   AND  NATURAL  BOUNDARIES. 

must  relate  to  the  beginning  of  the  controversy.      If  one  party 
has  already,   over  the  protest  and  insistence  of  the  other,  split 
the  difference  for  himself  by  pushing  forward  his  occupation  to 
the  middle  distance,  it   would  be  an   intolerable   suggestion  that 
an  arbitration  tribunal  should  again  give  him  a  middle  distance. 
The  rule  as  to  natural  boundaries  was  much,  and  very  strangely, 
made  use  of  by  Schomburgk  in  his  reports,  and  is  still  invoked  to 
justify  large  Dutch  and   British   encroachments.     As  applied  to 
the  British  claims  here,  the  rule  is  of  very  narrow  application, 
and  has  relation  rather  to  the  field  work  of  the  surveyor  than  to 
the  apportionment    of   large  territories.     It    assumes    that    the 
line  of  right  is  approximately  on   the  ridge,    or  watershed,  or 
river,  and  that  natural  line  is  adopted  rather   than   the   nearby 
artificial  one— because  it  furnishes  a  more  permanent   marking 
than  the  surveyor's  posts.    The  use  of  the  rule  by  Schomburgk 
is  very  extraordinary.     Before  he  entered  upon  his  survey  he  had 
selected  his  natural  boundaries  for  British  Guiana,  and  distinctly 
upon  the  principle  that  every  point  of  advantage  must  fall  upon 
the  British  side  of  the  line.     One  is  filled  with  wonder  as  he  reads 
Schomburgk's  letter  to  Governor  Light,  of  July  16,  1839  (B.  C. 
VII,  pp.,  2-Y),  to  see  the  partiality  shown  by  the  Creator  towards 
Great  Britain.     Every  range  and  river  was  so  located  as  to  give 
to  her  a  strategic  point  and  to  leave  her  neighbors  defenseless. 
In  every  instance  the    "natural   boundaries"    beckoned   Great 
Britain  forward.     If  she  claimed  to  one  river,  the  one  beyond 
was  the  "natural  boundary"!    If  rapacity  and  injustice  could 
ever  be  humorous,  that  letter  of  Schomburgk  would  give  him  new 
and  unsought  fame.      He    solemnly   deprecates  the   "  political 
motives "  of  the  Brazilians,  and  appropriates  the  Amacura  "to 
insure  the  political  importance  which  always  would  be  attached 
to  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco."     He  criticizes  a  boundary  survey 
by  the  Brazilians,  because  the  other  Powers  interested  were  not 
present  in  order  to  give  their  consent  to  the  "  extraordinary  pre- 
tensions" of  the  one-sided  and  self-elected  Brazilian  Boundary 


MIDDLE  DISTANCE   AND  NATURAL  BOUNDARIES.  T59 

Commissioners,  and  forthwith  sets  about  doing  the  same  thing. 
He  determines  that  Great  Britain  must  have  the  command  of  the 
Orinoco,  and  must  secure  the  savannahs  about  the  Rupununi,  in 
order  to  "  command  an  inland  navigation  which  may  be  extended 
to  the  Pacific  Ocean."  "  A  glance  at  the  map  of  South  America," 
he  says,  "  is  sufficient  to  show  what  advantages  Great  Britain 
may  expect  from  these  boundaries."  He  concludes  that  it  is  en- 
tirely "  practicable  to  run  and  mark  the  limits  of  British  Guiana 
on  the  system  of  natural  divisions,  and  that  the  limits  thus  de- 
fined are  in  perfect  unison  with  the  title  of  Her  Britannic  Majesty 
to  the  full  extent  of  that  territory."  What  a  rare  and  felicitous 
happening!  Great  Britain's  rights  and  her  wants  accord!  But 
the  accord  is  not  casual;  her  rights  were  fitted  to  her  needs. 
Schomburgk,  before  going  to  Barima,  had  given  to  Great  Britain 
the  command  of  the  Orinoco,  and  his  observations  there  are  to  be 
taken  in  the  light  of  that  fact. 

It  was  of  this  sort  of  use  of  the  rule  of  natural  boundaries  that 
Phillimore  wrote  the  phrase—"  has  been  much  used  by  powerful 
military  states  to  cover  the  unjust  spoliation  of  their  weaker 
neighbors." 

Natural  boundaries  that  mark  a  geographical  unit  may  be 
properly  taken  account  of  in  determining  the  limits  of  a  con- 
structive occupation.  But  in  the  case  in  hearing,  a  line  of  right 
must  be  found,  and  when  it  is  found  no  considerable  amount  of 
territory,  and  no  strategic  point  can  be  taken  from  one  and  given 
to  another  by  this  rule.  Only  unimportant  deviations  may  be 
made,  and  these  may  not  all  be  at  the  cost  of  one  party. 

SUMMARY. 

Thus  far,  in  the  discussion  of  the  question  of  limits  upon  the 
theory  of  Great  Britain  that  all  of  the  disputed  territory  was,  when 
the  Dutch  came  to  Essequibo,  terra  nullius;  or,  if  not,  that  by  the 
Treaty  of  Munster  the  Dutch  obtained  an  equal  right  with  Spain 


I 


760  MIDDLE  DISTANCE   AND   NATURAL  BOUNDARIES. 

to  appropriate  it  by  settlement— we  have  treated  chiefly  of  the 
principal  original  settlements  of  each. 

It  remains  now  to  see  what  was  done  by  the  Dutch  in  the  way 
of  advancing  their  settlements  within  the  disputed  limits. 

We  aflfirm,  first,  that  no  Dutchman  was  ever  authorized  to 
settle  on  the  coast  west  of  the  Moruca,  or  upon  any  river  enter- 
ing that  coast  or  the  Orinoco,  and  that  no  Dutch  colony  or 
settlement  was  ever  established  there.  No  colony  or  settle- 
ment of  Dutchmen  could  have  been  founded  there  without 
the  authorization  of  the  Dutch  West  India  Company.  No 
Dutchman  had  any  right  to  go  into  that  region,  or  to  sojourn 
or  trade  there  without  the  authorization  of  that  Company. 
If,  without  this,  he  went  there  he  was  a  trespasser  against 
Dutch  law,  and  could  acquire  no  landed  rights;  for  the  West 
India  Company  had,  as  against  all  Dutchmen,  an  exclusive 
right  to  trade  and  to  plant  settlements  there.  This  right  the 
Company  strenuously  asserted  against  the  Surinam  Dutch.  The 
Essequibo  and  the  Pomeroon  settlements  were  authorized  by  the 
Zeeland  Chamber,  but  no  settlement  in  the  Waini-Barima  region 
was  ever  authorized.  A  trade  there  was  authorized  and  was 
conducted  in  large  part  with  the  Spaniards,  but  no  act  was 
ever  done  or  authorized  looking  to  colonization  in  the  region 
we  are  speaking  of.  The  Dutch  records  have  been  remark- 
ably well  kept,  and  they  show  that  the  Governor  of  Esse- 
(luibo  was  required  to  record  and  to  report  with  commer- 
cial exactness  his  receipts  and  expenditures.  His  pay  rolls 
contain  a  list  of  all  officers  and  employees,  and  these  were 
very  carefully  scrutinized  and  supervised  at  home.  An  at- 
tempt by  the  Governor  to  found  a  new  settlement  without  the 
previous  authorization  of  the  Chamber  would  have  promptly 
ended  his  career.  A  new  settlement  implied  a  large  expenditure  - 
a  fort,  a  garrison  and  civil  officers.  The  home  authorities  and  the 
Governor  were  not  clear  whether  they  could  claim  this  region. 
They  were  fruitlessty  asking  each  other  where  the  boundary  wa<. 


MIDDLE  DISTANCE  AND  NATURAL  BOUNDARIES.  761 

Bat  there  is  more  than  an  absence  of  authorization  to  any 
Dutchman  to  settle  there;  there  is  an  affirmative  statement  of 
what  was  authorized  there.  It  was  a  "  shelter  "  and  not  a  post  or 
a  settlement.  It  did  not  contemplate  the  use  of  the  soil,  or 
the  gathering  of  settlers  about  it;  and  in  its  very  nature  was 
a  disclaimer  of  any  purpose  to  hold  the  locality  against  the 
Spaniards.  It  had  relation  to  trade  only,  and  to  a  trade  that  was 
not  seated,  but  fugitive.  The  name  and  the  character  of  these 
stationary  umbrellas  was  familiar;  and  Queen  Ehzabeth,  in  1580, 
told  the  Spanish  Ambassador  that  these  "shelters"  could  not 
confer  territorial  rights  (B.  C.-C.  App.,  p.  317).  What  England 
then  denied  to  Spain,  she  now  allows  to  herself. 

No  Dutchman  was  ever  authorized  to  go  to,  or  to  remain  for  a 
season  in  the  Waini-Barima  region  except  for  trade  or  to  catch  fish 
or  slaves;  and,  save  this  temporary  "shelter"  there  never  was 
west  of  the  Moruca  any  authorized  Dutch  post,  house  or  structure 
of  any  sort. 

In  1766  the  Court  of  Policy  "forbade  that  any  one  hereafter 
stay  in  Barima "  (V.  C,  vol.  ii,  p.  165).  In  1768  the  Dutch 
Director- General  reported  the  robbing  of  "  the  Widow  la  Riviere  " 
by  Spaniards;  and  added  that  "  this  did  not  matter  very  much, 
because  I  had  strictly  forbidden  Jan  la  Riviere  to  settle  between 
Essequibo  and  Orinocque,  and  for  greater  security,  I  had  this 
inserted  in  his  pass;  he  was  also  forbidden  by  the  Court  to  settle 
in  Barima."  (V.  C,  vol.  ii,  p.  176.)  And,  in  1769,  he  wrote  that 
the  widow  of  Jan  la  Riviere,  "  who  against  the  absolute  prohibi- 
tion of  the  Court  had  gone  with  his  slaves  to  live  in  Barima,"  hav- 
ing died  there  hiswidow  had  been  "  robbed  "  of  everything  by  the 
Spaniards,  and  had  returned  to  Essequibo.     (V.  C,  vol.  ii,  p.  187.) 

We  know  that  smugglers  and  other  disorderly  people— some  of 
them  probably  Dutch— were  there  for  a  time.  We  know  that 
Surinam  Dutch  went  there  to  trade  against  the  protest  of  the  Com- 
mandeur  in  Essequibo.  How  many  seasons  any  of  these  sorts  of 
visitors  remained  hidden  on  some  one  of  the  interlacing  water- 


763  MIDDLE  DISTANCE  AND   NATURAL  BOUNDARIES. 

ways,  we  do  not  know,  but  we  do  know  that  neither  the  West 
India  Company  nor  any  other  Dutch  governmental  authority  ever 
authorized  any  Dutchman  to  settle  or  to  appropriate  lands  there, 
and  that  if  any  one  did  so  his  act  was  not  only  unauthorized,  but 
in  opposition  to  Dutch  authority. 

But,  if  the  signs  and  traditions  found  by  Schomburgk  are 
fully  accepted,  it  remains  to  be  proved  that  the  Dutchman  was  an 
Essequibo  or  Pomeroon  Dutchman  authorized  to  be  there;  for,  if 
he  was  a  fugitive,  or  a  Surinam  Dutchman,  he  had  no  Dutch 
right  to  be  there.  He  was  an  intruder  or  a  smuggler,  whose  pres- 
ence could  not  create  a  settlement  of  the  West  India  Company, 
or  in  any  way  affect  the  boundary  question.  The  utter  lack  of 
any  reliable  knowledge  as  to  who  he  was,  how  he  came  there,  or 
how  long  he  remained,  leads  most  strongly  to  the  conclusion  that 
he  was  one  who  felt  that  his  presence  needed  to  be  concealed. 
Upon  such  evidence  as  this  a  title  by  settlement  certainly  cannot 
be  founded.  The  most  westerly  Dutch  settlement  on  the  coast 
then  was  on  the  Pomeroon  river. 

In  1802  the  English  Commandant  of  Berbice,  Deraerary  and 
Essequibo  speaks  of  the  "River  Pomaroon,  at  the  entrance  of 
which  is  the  furthest  military  post,  called  the  post  of  Morrocco.'* 
(B.  C.  V,  p.  172.) 

This  condition  was  continued  under  the  British  until  18S4. 
There  was  not  the  slightest  semblance  of  British  influence  west  of 
the  Monica  until  after  1839,  about  which  time  the  Postholder  ia 
the  Moruca  began  to  make  casual  visits  to  the  Barima-Waini 
region. 

The  British  claim  to  the  coast  region  west  of  the  Moruca  can- 
not be  rested  upon  an  actual  occupation  by  settlement. 

We  turn  now  to  the  interior,  to  see  what  part  of  the  disputed 
territory  there,  if  any,  was  ever  settled  or  actually  occupied  by 
the  Dutch.  We  affirm  with  confidence  that  nothing  that  can,  by 
any  stretch  of  consideration,  be  properly  called  a  settlement  was 
ever  established  by  the  Dutch  above   the   lowest  falls  of    the 


MIDDLE  DISTANCE  AND   NATURAL  BOUNDARIES.  Y63 

Cnyuni.  No  Dutch  grant  of  lands  above  that  point  was  ever 
made,  nor  was  there  any  survey  or  subdivision  of  lands  made 
looking  to  individual  allotments. 

The  only  structure  of  any  kind  raised  in  the  interior  of  the  dis- 
puted territory,  by  the  Dutch,  was  for  a  postholder's  dwelling  on 
the  Ouyuni. 

Dutch  trading  posts  were  temporarily  established  somewhere 
on  the  Cuyuni,  from  1764  to  1758;  again,  from  1766  to  1769,  and 
from  1769  to  1772. 

There  was  never  any  post  in  the  Mazaruni  above  Fort  Kykov- 
eral,  and  while  there  were  a  few  plantations  on  that  river  above 
and  near  the  Fort  during  the  earlier  days  of  the  colony,  in  1781, 
the  Director-General,  in  giving  a  list  of  plantations,  assigns  but 
one  to  the  Mazaruni. 

The  first  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  British  to  occupy  the  in- 
terior above  the  lowest  falls  of  the  Cuyuni  was  in  1880,  when 
placer  mining  was  begun  on  the  Puruni.  The  present  pohce 
station,  at  the  junction  of  the  Cuyuni  and  Yuruari  rivers,  was 
not  established  until  1890. 

As  to  Spain's  relations  to  the  disputed  territory  after  the 
Treaty  of  Munster,  they  have  been  discussed  in  other  chapters  of 
this  argument.  For  present  purposes  it  is  enough  to  say  that, 
apart  altogether  from  any  question  of  settlement  or  control  by 
Spain,  her  title  to  that  territory  was  not  dependent  upon  questions 
of  settlement.  Upon  other  considerations,  discussed  in  other 
chapters,  that  territory  belonged  to  Spain.  It  was  hers  by  right  of 
perfected  discovery,  by  the  rule  of  watershed,  and  upon  the  prin- 
ciple of  security. 

In  passing,  it  may  be  added,  especially  in  the  interior,  Spanish 
settlement  was  greatly  advanced  after  the  Treaty  of  Munster. 
Missions  were  established,  as  we  have  shown,  which  were  author- 
ized, defended  and  supported  by  the  Spanish  government.  Every 
one  of  these  contemplated  the  gathering  of  a  village,  and  the  use 

If  the  lands  for  agriculture  and  for  grazing.    The  place  did  not 
i 


'764  MIDDLE  DISTANCE   AND  NATURAL  BOUNDARIES. 

de|>end  wholly  upon  imported  colonists,  but  contemplated  the 
bringing  of  the  Indians  into  the  villages,  the  breaking  up  of  the 
tribal  relations  and  the  establishment  of  a  clerical  and  civil  Span- 
ish control  over  them.  They  were  not  made  slaves,  but  Catholics 
and  Spaniards.  Each  of  these  missions  sent  out  its  expeditions 
into  more  distant  parts  to  gather  in  the  Indians;  and  the  records 
of  the  Dutch  show  that  a  very  extensive  and  successful  grazing 
industry  was  established.  Horses  and  cattle  were  raised  in  such 
numbers  that  the  Dutch  supplied  their  needs  by  purchase  from  the 
Spaniards  and  from  a  region  now  claimed  by  Great  Biitain  to 
have  been  Dutch  territory.  If  this  region  was  open  to  appro- 
priation by  settlement,  by  the  first  comer,  it  was  appropriated  by 
Spain;  for  Spain  only  ever  made  a  settlement  within  it. 


705 


CONCLUSIOR 

Venezuela,  with  great  respect  but  with  great  confidence,  now 
submits  to  this  High  Tribunal  the  very  serious  issues  involved. 
She  does  this  in  the  happy  beUef  that  in  the  short  but  brilliant 
history  of  arbitration  tribunals  this  one  will  find  a  conspicuous 
place,  and  will  recommend  to  other  nations  the  use  of  this  great 
agency  of  peace.  Venezuela  has  no  direct  representative  upon 
this  Tribunal;  and,  by  this  fact,  it  is  more  nearly  assimilated  to 
the  great  courts  of  justice  from  which  the  idea  of  representation 
is  wholly  absent.  No  other  international  tribunal  has  presented 
this  feature.  They  have  been  too  much  the  conferences  of  repre- 
sentatives, rather  than  the  consultations  of  judges,  to  whom  the 
parties  are  quite  indifferent.  The  one  tends  to  unsatisfactory 
compromises,  the  other  to  decrees  that  establish  rights.  In  the 
very  constitution,  therefore,  of  this  Tribunal  we  have  the  strong- 
est appeal  to  the  sense  of  impartial  justice  and  the  surest  ground 
of  hope  that  the  judgment  may  confirm  the  faith  of  those  who 
believe  that  it  is  possible  to  bring  the  nations  to  a  bar  that  will 
treat  them  with  the  same  impartiality  that  is  shown  to  individual 
litigants.  When  that  confidence  is  fully  established,  the  era  of  a 
universal  peace  will  be  near. 


Respectfully  submitted, 


BENJAMIN  HARRISON, 
BENJAMIN  F.  TRACY, 
S.   MALLET-PREVOST, 
JAMES  RUSSELL  SOLEY, 

Counsel  for  Venezuela. 


i 


Of  the  following  six  papers  the  first  four  have  been  prepared 
by  His  Excellency  Senor  Rafael  Seljas,  formerly  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs  of  the  United  States  of  Venezuela,  and  the  remaining  two 
by  the  Agent  for  that  Government  before  the  Arbitral  Tribunal . 

PAGE 

1.  The  Bull  of  Pope  Alexander,  1493;  by  Rafael  Seijas iii 

2.  Comments  and   Criticisms  on   the   British  Case;    by   Rafael 

Seijas xi 

3.  Comments  and  Criticisms  on  the  Counter-Cases  of  Venezuela 

and  Great  Britain ;  by  Rafael  Seijas xxxi 

4.  Notes  on  Marmion's  Report  of  July  10,   1788,  and  on  maps 

submitted  by  Great  Britain ;  by  Rafael  Seijas I 

5.  The  Lines  of  Schomburgk  and  of  Codazzi;  by  J.  M.  de  Rojas. .   Ixxiii 

6.  British  Diplomacy  in  Caracas  from  1830  to  1850;  by  J.  M.  de 

Rojas Ixxvi 


Ill 


THE  BULL  OF  POPE  ALEXANDER,  1493. 

[Translation.] 

I  have  read  the  book  sent  me  by  the  Ministry  for  examina- 
tion, it  being  the  one  just  received,  and  entitl(3d  "  The  Diplomatic 
History  of  America.  Its  first  chapter,  1452-1493-1494,  by  Henry 
Harrisse,  London,  4  Trafalgar  Square;  B.  F.  Stevens,  Publisher, 
1897."  It  seems  to  be  a  nevs^  edition  of  the  work  of  Harrisse  which 
is  cited  in  the  following  extract. 

I  copy  the  following  from  a  paper  prepared  by  me  in  1886: 

"  The  London  Times  of  the  7th  March  ultimo  publishes  an 
opinion  on  the  Venezuelan  boundary  question,  written  by  Mr. 
Emil  Reich,  LL  D,  who,  on  reaching  the  subject  here  discussed 
says: 

"  '  It  now  remains  to  inquire  into  the  legal  points  involved  in 
the  present  question.  Spain,  and  now  Venezuela,  base  their  claim 
on  South  American  territories  on  the  famous  Bull  "  inter  coetera  " 
of  Pope  Alexander  VI  (May  4,  1493),  and  on  the  Treaty  of  Tordesil- 
las(June  3,  1494).  It  does  not  occur  to  us  to  question  the  power 
of  Pope  Alexander  to  issue  such  a  Bull.' 

"  There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  then,  in  the  latter 
half  of  the  15th  century,  the  Popes  were  pretty  generally  consid- 
ered as  the  depositaries  and  exponents  of  international  law." 

"  That  they  ceased  to  be  held  as  universal  arbiters  in  the  16th 
and  still  more  in  the  17th  century;  that  their  legal  attitude  to  the 
acquisition  of  '  ultramarine '  countries  was  already,  in  the  six- 
teenth century,  most  forcibly  assailed  and  impugned  by  even 
Spanish  teachers  of  international  law,  such  as  Francis  de  Victoria, 
Melchior  Cano,  Dominic  Soto,  Antonio  Raminez,  &c. ;  all  that  does 
not  legally  affect  the  recognition  of  the  Pope  as  international  ar- 
biter in  the  latter  half  of  the  15th  century. 


•'  As  was  done  by  the  present  Pope  in  the  arbitration  case  be- 
tween Spain  and  Germany  in  re  the  Caroline  Islands  (1885),  so 
every  fair  critic  must  proceed  now  in  the  case  between  England  and 
Venezuela— we  must  apply  to  historic  questions  of  the  15th  cen- 
tury the  principles  of  law  of  that  very  century,  and  of  no  other.  In 
thus  accepting  Alexander's  Bull  as  a  legal  title,  we  can  yet  not  ac- 
cept "it  as  a  clear  title.  The  line  of  demarcation  drawn  fey  the 
Pope  has  never  been  clearly  fixed,  and  Harrisse  has  proved  that, 
if  anywhere,  that  line  struck  the  Continent  of  South  America  so 
far  west  as  to  exclude  the  territory  between  the  Orinoco  and  the 
Amazon  rivers— that  is,  the  Guayanas.  To  cap  this  it  can  be 
shown  that  in  the  long  transactions  between  Spain  and  Portugal 
in  re  their  boundary  disputes  in  South  America  in  1750  and  1777, 
the  Bull  of  the  Pope,  although  directly  bearing  on  the  question  at 
issue,  was  never  mentioned  at  all,  et  pour  cause. 

The  book  consists  of  twenty  chapters,  as  follows: 

I.     The  Papal  Grants  to  Portugal.     1452-1*84. 
II.    Spain  asks  the  Pope  for  a  Grant  of  the  Newly -Discovered 
Regions.     1493. 

III.  The  Three  Bulls  of  May,  1493. 

IV.  Alleged  Piotest  of  Portugal  at  Rome. 

V.  The  Bull  of  Demarcation  not  "ridiculous." 

VI.  Spain  sends  an  Embassy  of  Obedience. 

VII.  The  Fourth  Bull  of  1498. 

VIII.  Signing  of  the  Treaty  of  Tordesillas. 

IX.  Alleged  Partition  of  the  Globe. 

X.  Colurahus  and  the  Treaty  of  Tordesillas. 

XL  Spanish  Interpretation  of  the  Treaty  of  Tordesillas. 

XII.  Ferrer's  Theory. 

XIII.  The  First  Tracing  of  the  Demarcation  Line. 

XIV.  The  Theory  of  Enciso. 

XV.     What  is  the  River  Marafionf 
XVI.     Enciso's  Geographical  Description. 


XVII.     The  Marafion  and  the  Maranh^o. 
XVIII.    Spanish  Rufing  at  Badajoz. 
XIX.     The  Demarcation  Line  in  Spanish  Maps. 
XX.     The  Official  Model  Map. 
Conclusions. 
Kotfes. 
Of  these  chapters  the  fifth  is  so  interesting  that  it  has  seemed 
well  to  translate  it  itj  full,  and  include  the  translation  herewith, 
pp. 

It  is  also  well  to  study  the  conclusions,  which  are  as  follows: 

CONGIiUSIONS. 

Notwithstanding  the  subsequent  Bulls  and  treaties  between 
Spain  and  Portugal,  all  attempts  to  determine  the  place  where  the 
Demarcation  Line  was  to  pass  in  America  have  been  based  upon 
the  stipulations  of  the  Treaty  of  Tordesillas  (1494). 

The  location  of  this  divisional  line  has  varied  according  to  the 
notions  which  the  cosmographers  of  the  times  had  of  the  circum 
ference  of  the  earth  and  of  the  length  of  the  marine  league. 

But  in  every  instance  save  one  tlie  Line  was  fixed  east  of  both 
mouths  of  the  Amazon  river. 

Thus  do  we  find  that,  according  to  Jaime  Feirer  (1495),  the 
meridian  of  the  Demarcation  Line  on  his  sphere  was  in 42°  25',  west 
of  Greenwich,  and  on  our  sphere  in  45"  87',  also  west  of  Green- 
wich. 

According  to  Martin  Fernandez  de  Enciso  (1518),  that  meri- 
dian, on  his  sphere,  was  in  4T°  2+'  west  of  Greenwich,  and  on  our 
sphere  in  45°  38',  also  west  of  Greenwich. 

According  to  the  experts  convened  at  the  Badajoz  Junta 
(Duran,  Sebastian  Cabot,  etc..  in  1524),  the  meridian  of  the  Line, 
on  their  sphere,  was  in  47°  17'  west  of  Greenwich,  and  on  onr 
sphere  in  46°  36'  west  of  Greenwich. 

According  to  Diego  Ribeiro  and  the  Sevillian  Hydrography  of 
the  IHth  century  (1529  usque    *    *    *),  the  meridian  of  the  Line, 


VI 

on  their  sphere,  was  in  44**  45'  west  of  Greenwich,  and  on  our 
sphere  in  49**  46',  east  of  the  western  mouth  only. 

Yet,  according  to  Alonzo  de  Chaves  and  the  Padron  General, 
as  interpreted  by  Oviedo  (1545),  the  meridian  of  the  Line  on  that 
model  chart  was  in  a  longitude  seeming  to  correspond,  on  our 
sphere  with  45°  IT  west  of  Greenwich,  which  locates  the  Line  east 
of  both  mouths  of  the  Amazona. 

As  to  the  Portuguese  cosmographers,  they  place  the  Line, 
judging  from  its  position  in  the  Cantino  map,  (1502),  in  a  longi- 
tude apparently  corresponding,  on  our  sphere,  with  42°  30'  west  of 
Greenwich." 

It  results,  then,  that  Guiana,  lying  to  the  west  of  this  meridian, 
belonged  to  Spain. 

The  British  Case  says  that  England,  France,  and  Holland 
repudiated  the  grants  made  by  the  Bulls. 

But  the  book  examined  proves  that  in  former  times  Great 
Britain  recognized  them,  and  to  one  of  them  she  owes  the  acquisi- 
tion of  Ireland. 

Dr.  Quijano  Otero  upholds  the  Bulls  in  his  historical  report 
upon  the  boundaries  between  Colombia  and  Brazil,  claiming  that 
all  Christian  Princes  have  recognized  their  validity,  and  citing  the 
case  of  Edward  IV  of  England. 

Their  validity  is  also  admitted,  as  has  been  shown,  by  the 
English  lawyer,  Emil  Reich. 

And  it  is  also  admitted  by  the  United  States  of  America,  since 
they  place  the  Bull  of  Alexander  VI  at  the  head  of  the  Constitu- 
tion of  Florida,  which  Spain  ceded  to  them  in  1819.  See  their 
official  publication  -Federal  and  State  Constitutions. 

That  document  also  figures  in  the  Case  of  the  Argentine  Repub- 
lic in  its  recent  boundary  question  with  Brazil,  decided  by  the 
arbitral  award  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  of  America. 
Caracas,  May  10,  1898. 

(Signed)  Rafael  Seijas. 


Vll 


The  Bull  op  Demarcation  not  Ridiculous.* 

In  our  days,  after  four  centuries,  the  power  which  the  popes 
claimed  to  exercise  regarding  the  paramount  sovereignty  over  the 
islands  of  the  world,  appears  to  us  excessive  and  singular.  It  is 
not  without  surprise,  therefore,  especially  among  Protestant  na- 
tions, that  Venezuela,  for  instance,  is  seen  at  such  a  late  date  to 
appeal  to  a  papal  grant  as  the  source  of  her  rights  over  Guiana  in 
the  present  conflict  with  England.  But  it  is  evident  that  to  judge 
the  question  with  impartiality,  we  must  carry  our  thoughts  back 
to  the  time  when  the  donation  was  made  to  Spain,  and  not  con- 
sider it  with  the  ideas  which  prevail  to-day. 

Apostolical  letters  constituted  in  a  great  measure  at  the  close 
of  the  fifteenth  century  what  might  be  termed  the  ruling  law  of 
Europe,  since  they  were  based  upon  traditions,  as  well  as  rules 
which  were  universally  deemed  to  be  equitable,  or,  at  all  events, 
received  as  such  by  all  European  nations.  England,  which  now 
describes  that  supreme  authority  and  its  logical,  direct  and  im- 
mediate consequences  as  "comical"  and  "  ridiculous,"  yielded  to 
it  formerly  with  as  much  readiness  and  respect  as  any  other  na- 
tion. Nay,  during  several  centuries,  her  historians  believed,  and 
a  number  still  believe  it,  that  the  rights  of  Great  Britain  over  Ire- 
land had  precisely  the  same  origin  as  the  rights  claimed  by  Vene- 
zuela over  a  part  of  British  Guiana.     And  so  it  is,  historically. 

In  the  "  Metalogicus"  of  John  of  Salisbury  can  be  read  the  fol- 
lowing statement:  '-At  my  request  the  Pope  granted  and  gave  to 
the  illustrious  King  of  England,  Henry  II.,  Ireland  to  possess  by 
an  hereditary  title,  as  is  shown  by  his  Letters,  which  are  pre- 
served to  this  day.  For  all  those  islands,  by  virtue  of  a  very 
ancient  right,  are  considered  to  belong  to  the  Roman  Church,  in 

*  This  article,  pp.  vii-x,  entitled  The  Bull  of  demarcation  not  ridiculous,  is  a  reprint 
of  Chapter  V.  of  a  work  entitled  The  Diplomatic  History  of  America.  London.  B.  F. 
Stevens,  ISU?. 


nil 

consequence  of  the  donation  made  by  Constantine,  who  founded 
and  endowed  that  Church.  Besides,  Pope  Adrian  sent  through 
me  a  golden  ring  adorned  with  a  gem  of  great  value,  in  proof  of 
the  right  to  govern  Ireland." 

One  of  the  letters  mentioned  by  John  of  Salisbury  is  evidently 
the  Bull  Laudabiliter,  inserted  by  Baronius  and  by  Rynier  in  their 
collections,  under  the  date  of  1155.  We  notice  in  that  document, 
among  the  reasons  of  Adrian  IV.  for  granting  to  Henry  II.  the 
kingdom  which  he  was  preparing  to  conquer,  two  of  those  ad- 
duced by  Alexander  VI.  in  the  Bull  granting  the  New  World  to 
Ferdinand  and  Isabella,  viz.:  for  the  strengthening  of  the  Church, 
and  the  spread  of  the  Christian  religion. 

The  authenticity  of  a  part  of  that  apostolic  letter  is  now  con- 
tested, and  not  without  cogent  arguments.  But  it  cannot  be 
denied  that  the  Bull  Landabiliter  well  expresses  the  sentiments 
which,  as  regards  the  alleged  primordial  rights  of  the  Holy  See, 
were  recognized  by  Enropean  nations  in  general,  and  England  in 
particular.  Even  if,  as  several  scholars  of  note  say,  the  Bull  had 
been  invented  or  interpolated  by  Henry  II.,  we  are  bound  to  infer 
from  such  a  deception  that  the  sovereignty  of  the  pK)pes,  at  least 
over  the  islands  of  the  world,  was  recognized  in  the  British  Isles 
as  well  as  anywhere  else.  Otherwise,  of  what  use  would  have 
been  the  supposed  interpolation? 

Further,  on  the  Sunday  preceding  the  Feast  of  the  Assumption 
in  1173,  Henry  II.,  in  the  Cathedral  of  Avranches,  before  the 
legates,  bishops,  barons,  and  people,  his  hand  on  the  Gospels, 
placed  his  own  kingdom  of  England  and  all  its  dependencies  under 
the  pontificial  sovereignty.  The  following  year  he  was  more 
explicit  still.  In  a  letter  addressed  to  Pope  Alexander  III.,  in 
U7:i,  the  authenticity  of  which  has  not  been  questioned,  he  says 
to  the  pontiff:  "The  Kingdom  of  England  belongs  to  your  juris- 
diction; and  as  to  the  obligation  of  feudal  light,  I  acknowledge 
myself  to  be  the  subject  of  you  alone."  It  was-  not  therefore  a 
mere  spiritual  sovereignty,  but  one  paramount  and  absolute. 


ix 

Under  the  circumstances,  it  is  evident  that  a  kin^  who  cfeclared 
himself  to  be,  in  such  terms,  a  mere  vassal  of  the  Pope  would  not 
have  acted  inconsistently  in  asking  of  him  the  grant  of  the  King- 
dom of  Ireland  which  he  coveted. 

This  submission  to  the  rights  or  pretensions  of  the  papacy  was 
not  limited  in  England  to  the  Plantagenets.  It  continued  in  the 
Houses  of  Lancaster  and  York.  Such,  at  least,  was  the  case  with 
the  first  Tudor.  The  five  embassies  of  obedience  Which  Henry 
VII.  sent  to  Rome  from  1485  to  1493,  prove  his  catholic  deference. 
It  is  no  exaggeration  therefore  to  say  that  if  the  auditor  of  the 
Rota,  Jerome  Porcio,  had  kept  his  promise  to  publish  the  dis- 
course "  bene  et  eleganter  corapositum,"  which  was  pronounced 
by  John  Sherwood,  Bishop  of  Durham,  when,  December  14,  1492, 
he  came  with  Giovanni  Gigli,  of  Lucca,  to  place  the  oath  of  obedi- 
ence for  Henry  Tudor  in  the  hands  of  Alexander  VI.,  we  should 
find  in  his  oration  the  same  expressions  used  in  the  discourses 
pronounced  about  the  same  time  by  the  ambassadors  of  the 
Catholic  Sovereigns  And  just  before  the  time  when  Borgia 
granted  to  Ferdinand  and  Isabella  the  countries  recently  discovered 
by  Christopher  Columbus,  England  still  took  as  a  basis  for  her 
right  of  sovereignty  over  Ireland,  the  Bull  Laudahiliter,  that  is, 
an  authority  derived  from  the  same  principle  and  source. 

Again,  the  sending  by  Henry  VII.  of  John  Cabot  four  yiears 
afterwards  to  discover  Cathay  does  not  militate  against  his  re- 
gard for  the  papal  authority  in  that  respect.  The  King  of  England 
doubtless  interpreted  the  rights  conceded  to  Spain  and  Portugal  as 
not  excluding  in  the  main  the  .search  by  other  nations  for  new 
lands  and  islands.  The  restrictions  set  forth  in  the  Bulls  applied 
only  to  the  discoveries  actually  accompHshed  by  those  two  powers. 
This  we  see  by  the  fact  that  Henry  VIL  imposes  as  a  primary 
condition  the  going  only  to  regions  heretofore  unknown  of  all 
Christians:  "  Quae  christianis  omnibus  ante  haec  tempora  fuerunt 
iiicognitae."  These  are  almost  the  terms  of  the  Bulls  inter  ce- 
tera.    But  those  discoveries  once  accomplished,  they  required  the 


z 

confirraation  and  vesting  from  the  Pope,  according  to  the  then 

custom  in  Europe. 

At  that  time  Henry  VII.  entertained  sincere  feelings  of  respect 
and  gratitude  for  the  papacy.  He  had  not  forgotten  the  eminent 
service  rendered  to  him  only  a  few  years  before  by  Innocent  VIII. 
When,  after  the  Battle  of  Bosworth,  wishing  to  extinguish  for- 
ever the  dissensions  existing  between  the  Houses  of  York  and 
Lancaster,  by  marrying  his  cousin,  the  daughter  of  Edward  III., 
he  had  not  only  obtained,  without  difficulty,  the  required  dispen- 
sation, but  by  sending  Giacomo  Passarelli  to  London,  and  by  the 
famous  Bull  ineffabilis  sedentis,  the  Pope  had  lent  him  powerful 
aid  and  consecrated  the  new  dynasty. 

Under  such  circumstances  Henry  Tudor  would  not  have  disre- 
garded the  decisions  of  the  Court  of  Rome,  with  which  he  never 
ceased  to  be  in  the  best  of  terms,  as  is  shown  by  the  frequent  em- 
bassies of  obedience  which  he  sent  him  at  the  end  of  the  fifteenth 
century. 

It  is  true  that  by  what  we  know,  through  Burchard  and  In- 
fessura,  of  the  orations  which  were  pronounced  at  Rome  by  the 
special  envoys  of  the  King  of  England,  particularly  that  of  May 
1,  1604,  on  the  occasion  of  the  accession  of  Julius  II.,  we  gather 
that  no  mention  is  made  of  the  countries  discovered  in  the  north- 
west. But  the  expeditions  of  John  Cabot,  of  the  brothers  Fer- 
nandez, and  of  Bristol  shipowners,  had  yielded  no  such  results  as 
Henry  VII.  cared  to  secure.  Those  voyages  to  Labrador  and 
Newfoundland,  where  the  navigators  sailing  under  the  English 
flag  had  scarcely  found  anything  else  than  barren  countries,  ice- 
bergs and  white  bears,  resulted  neither  in  profits  nor  expectations. 
This  is  the  reason  why  we  do  not  see  England  put  forward  Cabot's 
expedition  as  the  ground  of  her  rights  to  the  sovereignty  of  North 
America  until  a  century  afterwards,  and  then  chiefly  to  thwart 
the  efforts  of  France  in  colonizing  Canada  and  the  adjacent 
regions. 


XI 


COMMENTS    AND    CRITiaSMS    ON    THE 
BRITISH    CASE 

[Translation.] 
The  British  Case  dedicates  an  article  to  "Papal  Grants."  It 
calls  attention  to  that  of  Alexander  VI  to  Spain,  the  prior  one  of 
Nicholas  V  in  favor  of  Portugal,  the  controversies  between  that 
nation  and  Spain,  and  the  treaty  concluded  between  them  at  Tor- 
desillasin  1494.  It  then  states  that  by  the  Treaty  of  Madrid,  1750, 
Article  1,  all  rights  which  rested  upon  the  Bull  of  1493,  the  Treaty  of 
Tordesillas  and  other?,  were  put  aside;  and  by  subsequent  articles 
the  right  of  the  two  Powers  inter  se  were  declared  anew.  That 
the  grants  made  to  Spain  by  the  Papal  Bulls  were  entirely  repu- 
diated by  England,  France  and  Holland.  That  Calvo,  treating  of 
the  pretensions  of  Portugal  in  Africa  without  actually  resting 
upon  the  Papal  title,  observes  parenthetically  that  the  Bulls  have, 
however,  "a  judicial  character  with  relaxation  to  the  epoch  in 
which  they  were  published";  that  with  this  exception  all  the 
writers  from  Grotius  down  considered  those  Bulls  as  binding  only, 
if  at  all,  upon  Spain  and  Portugal,  but  utterly  inoperative  as  re- 
garding other  powers.  That  Francis  I  of  France,  and  Elizabeth, 
of  England,  both  protested  against  these  claims,  and  consequently 
they  have  ignored  them;  and  finally,  that  Calhoun,  in  the  course 
of  the  Oregon  question,  wrote  as  follows: 

"  When  this  continent  was  first  discovered  *  *  *  Spain  claimed  the 
whole  in  virtue  of  the  grant  of  the  Pope,  but  a  claim  so  extravagant  and 
unreasonable  was  not  acquiesced  in,  and  could  not  long  be  maintained." 

It  does  not  appear  that  there  is  much  accuracy  in  the  preced- 
ing allegations,  particularly  if  we  have  before  us  the  said  treaty 
of  1670,  by  which  Great  Britain  received  from  Spain  the  confirm- 
ation of  that  which  at  that  time  the  British  King  or  his  subjects 
possessed  in  America;  which  was  agreeing  that  America  and  her 
adjacent  islands  in  fact  belonged  to  Spain,  whether  this  title  was 


derived  from  the  grants  of  the  Pope  or  from  discoveries  prior  and 
subsequwit  thereto. 

This  case  refers  to  a  passage  of  Calvo,  Section  270,  in  which 
he  says,  parenthetically,  after  citing  the  bulls,  that  "the  import- 
ance of  the  judicial  character  of  these  documents  with  respect  to 
the  epoch  in  which  they  were  published  cannot  be  denied "  (the 
words,  however,  not  being  given  in  full),  vsrhich  show,  it  is  said, 
that  the  publicist  referred  to  does  not  found  a  title  upon  them; 
but  Calvo  in  other  places  speaks  more  explicitly.  For  example, 
on  page  24  of  the  introduction  to  his  work,  or  page  283,  Section 
283  in  the  first,  he  writes: 

"  This  important  question  of  the  right  of  possession  and  sovereignty 
over  recently  discovered  lands  shows  the  character  of  the  political  relations 
which  Enropean  States  preserved  toward  the  Roman  Pontiff,  and  that,  un- 
til a  direct  wid  special  agreement  was  entered  into,  neither  Spain  nor  Por- 
tugal hesitated  to  accept  the  competency  and  authority  of  Alexander  VI., 
who  disposed  at  will  of  the  ownership  of  the  regions,  islands  and  conti- 
nents which  the  genius  of  navigators  might  reveal  to  the  world." 

In  Section  283  he  is  even  more  positive  and  emphatic,  as  he  ex- 
presses himself  in  these  terms: 

"  Tlie  public  law  of  Europe  in  the  latter  part  of  the  Middle  Ages  was 
completely  dominated  bt/  the  Church;  the  Pope  was  considered  hierarchically 
as  the  supreme  authority  in  the  determination  of  international  questions. 
On  the  other  hand,  in  order  better  to  justify  appropriation  by  way  of  con- 
quest, it  was  admitted  that  the  Christian  nations  had  an  implicit  and  abso- 
lute right  of  dominion  over  the  pagan  nations.  Prom  the  combination  of 
these  principles  wa«  derived  the  sitaation  created  toward  the  American 
aborigines,  according  to  the  European  nations,  by  the  right  of  discovery 
and  the  celebrated  Bull  of  Alexander  VI.,  which,  by  means  of  the  line 
drawn  at  a  distance  of  three  hundred  leagues  to  the  west  of  the  Azores, 
Hxed  the  territories  destinetl  to  belbng  to  the  crowns  of  Spain  and  Portu- 
Kal  rcspeotivoly.  It  is  known  that  later,  With  a  view  to  settling  the  dia- 
ugreements  which  had  ai-isen  between  the  interested  parties,  the  imaginary 
hue  w.is  extended  to  three  hundred  and  fifty  leagues  west  of  the  same 
islands,  thus  legitimatizing  the  pretensions  of  the  Portuguese  to  the  sov- 
ereignty of  Brazil 

However,  the  Mnropean  domination  o«fer  the  lands  and  islands- of  the 


xrn 

new  world  does  not  rest  exclusively  upon  the  decisions  of  the  Holy  See  and 
the  precepts  of  canonical  law;  they  had  also  another  foundation,  which 
Spain  herself  has  invoked  more  than  once  in  support  of  her  rights  to  the 
territories  of  which  her  bold  navigators  had  succeeded  in  taking  possession. 
It  was  unlikely  that  France,  England  and  Holland,  imbued  with  a  desire 
to  create  a  colonial  dominion  and  to  oj^en  new  fields  for  their  commerce, 
should  avail  themselves  of  the  same  principles  ;  and  thus  it  was  that  there 
broke  forth  those  bloody  muritime  wars  which  characterised  neai-ly  the 
entire  seventeenth  and  a  part  of  the  eighteenth  centuries. " 

On  the  other  hand,  the  book  of  Harrisse,  w^hich  is  spoken  of  in 
a  different  paper,  proves  how^  far  the  veneration  of  the  British 
for  the  acts  of  the  Pope  as  supreme  legislator  extended,  and 
proves,  also,  that  to  a  Bull  they  owed  the  acquisition  of  Ire- 
land. If  the  Popes  had  the  right  to  make  grants  in  favor  of  Eng- 
land it  would  be  absurd  not  to  admit  that  they  had  the  power  to 
make  like  grants  to  Spain. 

As  to  GrotiuB,  he  was  a  Dutchman,  and  wrote  with  the  earnest 
desire  to  justify  the  conduct  of  his  nation  in  America  and  else- 
where. 

It  is  not  true  that  the  publicist  Calvo  alone  concedes  value  to 
the  acts  of  the  Pope  in  these  times. 

Ch.  Salomon,  in  his  work  "Occupation  of  Territories  without 
an  Owner,"  published  in  Paris  in  1889,  has  for  the  first  chapter 
the  following: 

"Peri)d  of  the  Bulls."  "Summary.  8,  Epoch  of  the  Great  Discov- 
eries. 9,  The  Bulls.  10,  The  Bulls  of  Alexander  VI.  11 ,  Treaty  of  Tor- 
desillas.  I'i,  Principles  applied  during  this  period.  13,  The  rights  of 
the  natives, — Victoria.  U,  Analysis  of  the  dissertation  upon  Victoria. 
First  part:  The  Indians  were  the  proprietors  and  sovereigns  of  the  soil 
which  they  occupied.  15.  Second  part :  Analysis  of  the  titles  invoked  by 
the  Spaniards  to  establish  the  validity  of  their  taking  possession.  16,  Third 
part:  What  are  the  titles  which  may  justify  such  taking  of  possession." 

In  number  U  he  says:  "We  have  to  give  an  opinion  upon  the  different 
Bulls  and  the  treaties  which  affected  the  partition  of  the  world  between 
Portugal  and  Spain.  The  principles  which  inspired  them  would  hardly 
find  a  partisan  in  our  day,  and  on  this  point  we  agree  with  the  opinion  of 


Cttuchy:  //  is  necessary,  if  one  wishes  to  understand  their  spirit  and  appre- 
ciate their  value,  to  take  care  not  to  study  them  in  the  light  of  modern  ideas. 
In  the  practical  point  of  view,  the  Bull  of  Alexander  VI.  has  found  de- 
fenders even  down  to  our  own  times.  Benthain,  impressed  with  the  diflfi- 
cuities  presented  by  the  theory  of  discovery  and  the  occupation  as  it  was 
understood  at  the  period  in  which  he  wrote,  eulogizes  it  in  a  manner  ap- 
parently sincere.  Sumner-Maine  is  not  far  from  agreeing  with  his 
opinion." 

Number  12  is  to  the  following  effect:  "  The  doctrine  of  the  period  with 
which  we  are  occupied  may  be  reduced  to  four  propositions :  (a.)  The  Pope 
has  the  right  to  dispose  to  whomsoever  he  may  choose  all  the  lands  situated 
outside  of  the  civilized  world,  whether  discovered  or  not;  all  property  as  well 
as  all  sovereignty  proceeds  to  him.  These  two  ideas,  on  the  other  hand,  are 
confounded;  (b)  the  acquisition  of  those  immense  territories,  unknown  up 
to  that  time,  is  not  by  reason  of  discovery  nor  by  occupation,  but  toadona- 
tion  graciously  given  by  the  Pope.  So  that  the  title  to  possession  is  deriva- 
tive and  not  original.  The  donation  is  always  revocable  if  the  conditions 
under  which  it  was  given  are  not  observed;  (c)  the  Christian  only  can  possess 
and  be  a  proprietor;  only  the  Christian  state  enjoys  the  rights  of  sovereignty; 
(d)  the  pagan  natives  have  no  rights. " 

Accoi*ding  to  this  the  writer  deems  applicable  to  the  questions 
which  originated  at  the  time  those  doctrines  were  in  vogue,  the 
principles  then  prevailing. 

Of  the  same  opinion  is  Cauchy,  cited  by  Salomon.  In  eflfect, 
the  former,  in  the  article  entitled  "  Bulls  of  Partition,"  writes  with 
regard  to  that  of  Alexander  VI  as  follows: 

"  It  is  one  of  the  last  and  most  solemn  occasions  in  which  the  Papacy 
intervened  under  color  of  religious  interests,  in  the  settlement  of  the  tem- 
jwral  affairs  of  the  crowns.  That  act  has  been  too  much  judged  according 
to  our  modern  ideas,  instead  of  applying  to  it,  on  the  contrary,  the  ideas 
which  had  for  such  a  long  time  prevailed  in  Europe,  whose  empire,  enfeebled 
by  degrees  in  a  part  of  Germany  and  other  great  central  States,  yet  pre- 
served itself  unimpaired  in  the  Spanish  Peninsula." 

In  a  note  added  at  the  foot  of  this  article  we  find: 
"  The  Kings  of  Portugal  submitted  the  legitimacy  of  that  discovery  and 
posseuiou  to  the  judgment  of  the  Pope,  the  supreme  common  judge  selected 
in  those  times  as  an  arbitrator  by  all  the  kings  in  Christeudom,  in  their 


XV 


differences.  {Investigations  as  to  the  priority  of  discovery  of  the  countries 
situated  upon  the  western  coast  of  Africa  beyond  Cape  Bojador,  by  Vicount 
de  Santarem,  ;o.  66.) 

'•  Grotius  himself  was  inclined  to  consider  the  Bulls  of  Partition  as  a 
form  of  transaction  between  the  two  crowns  rather  than  an  exclusive 
attribute  of  dominion.  Or,  it  may  be  said  that  this  decision  is  without 
force,  or,  which  is  not  less  credible,  Ihat  the  desire  of  the  Pontiff  was  to 
intercede  in  the  Castilian-Portuguese  controversy  rather  than  to  in  anywise 
prejudice  the  rights  of  others." 

The  jurist,  Emil  Reich,  in  his  opinion  upon  the  Guiana  ques- 
tion published  in  the  London  Times  of  March  7,  1896,  declared 
that  the  power  of  Pope  Alexander  VI  to  grant  the  Bull  of  1493 
could  not  be  questioned. 

If  Calhoun  really  wrote  that  which  is  attributed  to  him,  yet 
another  Secretary  of  State  of  the  American  Union,  Upshur,  stated 
in  1843: 

"  HoAv  far  the  mere  discovery  of  a  territory  which  is  either  unsettled,  or 
settled  only  by  savages,  gives  a  right  to  it,  is  a  question  which  neither  the 
law  nor  the  usages  of  nations  has  yet  de6nitely  settled.  The  opinions  of 
mankind,  upon  this  point,  have  undergone  very  great  changes  with  the  pro- 
gress of  knowledge  and  civilization.  Yet  it  will  scarcely  be  denied  that 
rights,  acquired  by  the  general  consent  of  civilized  nations,  even  under  the 
erroneous  views  of  an  unenlightened  age,  are  protected  against  the  changes 
of  opinion  resulting  merely  from  the  more  liberal  or  the  more  just  views  of 
after  times.  The  right  of  nations  to  countries  discovered  in  the  sixteenth 
century  is  to  be  determined  by  the  law  of  nations  as  understood  at  that  time, 
and  not  by  the  improved  and  more  enlightened  opinion  of  three  centuries 
later."     [Wharton's  Digest,  Sec.  2.] 

Washington  Irving,  cited  by  Rodway  and  Watt,  "  Annals  of 
duiana,"  affirms  that: 

"During  the  Crusades  a  doctrine  had  been  established  among  the  Chris- 
tian princes"  according  to  which  "the  Pope,  from  his  supreme  authority 
over  all  temporal  things,  was  considered  as  empowered  to  dispose  of  all 
heathen  lands  to  such  potentates  as  would  engage  to  reduce  them  to  the 
dominion  of  the  church,  and  to  propagate  the  true  faith  among  their  be- 
nighted inhabitants." 


XVI 


The  Colombian  publicist,  Sefior  Jose  Maria  Quijano  Otero,  in 
his  report  on  the  boundary  between  Colombia  and  Brazil  writes: 

'*  All  Christian  princes  recognized  the  validity  of  these  Bulls,  and  it  is 
even  affirmed  that  some  British  merchants  having  desired  to  carry  on  trade 
with  Guinea,  the  King  of  Portugal,  John  IL,  called  upon  Edward  IV., 
King  of  England,  to  iroF^e  such  trade,  basing  his  demand  upon  the 
dominion  conceded  to  him  over  that  territory  by  a  Papal  Bull.  The  pro- 
hibition was  carried  into  effect,  the  British  monarch  being  convinced  of  the 
claimant's  rights.*' 

He  cities  in  support  of  him  Hakluyt's  Navigations,  Voyages 
and  Traffics  of  the  English;  Vol.  II.,  Part  II.,  page  2. 

The  United  States  acquired  Florida  by  purchase  from  Spain  in 
1819,  and  soon  after  she  entered  into  the  membership  in  the 
American  Union.  In  the  book  entitled  *'  Federal  Constitutions  of 
the  United  States,  Colonial  Laws,  and  other  organic  laws  of  the 
States,"  compiled  pursuant  to  the  order  of  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States  by  Ben  Perley  Poore,  in  setting  forth  the  constitu- 
tion of  Florida  he  places  before  it  the  privileges  conceded  to 
Columbus  by  the  King  of  Spain  on  April  3,  1492;  the  Bull  of  Pope 
Alexander  VI.,  of  1493,  which  granted  America  to  Spain;  the 
treaty  of  1795,  between  her  and  the  United  States,  and  finally  the 
treaty  of  February  22,  1819,  relating  to  the  cession  of  Florida. 

What  the  British  Case  says  regarding  the  Treaty  of  Madrid 
of  1760  is  completely  overturned  by  the  observation  that,  when  it 
declares  that  this  Treaty  shall  be  the  only  basis  for  the  division  of 
the  dominions  of  Spain  and  Portugal  in  America,  and  agrees  to 
declare  annulled  any  right  and  action  which  the  two  crowns  could 
found  upon  the  Bull  of  Alexander  VI.,  and  the  Treaties  of  Torde- 
sillas,  of  Lisbon,  or  the  agreement  executed  at  Zaragoza,  and  of 
any  other  treaties,  conventions  and  promises,  it  adds  that  all  ofj 
them,  as  far  as  they  refer  to  the  line  of  demarcation,  should 
void  and  of  no  effect,  but  should  remain  in  full  force  and  vigor  in  j 
every  other  particular. 

It  thus  annulled  the  basis  of  the  line  of  demarcation,  but  noil 


XVI I 


the  gift  of  the  Dominion  of  America  and  other  places  made  to  the 
two  crowns. 

To  the  same  end,  it  is  claimed  that  only  acquisitive  prescrip- 
tion is  applicable  to  nations,  and  in  no  manner  free  prescription. 
Because  of  this,  and  for  the  reason  that  the  Treaty  of  Munster 
did  not  authorize  Holland  to  conquer  territory  in  Guiana  that 
Spain  deemed  to  be  hers,  and  because  that  document  prohibited 
either  of  the  two  parties  selling  and  trafficking  in  the  places  pos- 
sessed by  the  other,  including  therein  those  taken  from  Holland 
in  Brazil  by  the  Portuguese;  it  has  been  deduced  that  such  prohi- 
bition has  always  been  in  force,  and  that  in  consequence  thereof 
the  Dutch  could  not,  without  violating  it,  occupy  places  that  were 
not  among  those  ceded  to  tliem  by  the  Treaty  of  Munster,  that  is 
to  say,  Kykoveral  and  the  mouth  of  the  Essequibo. 

Those  arguments  may  have  so  much  more  effect,  in  view  of 
Eule  (a)  of  the  Treaty  of  Arbitration,  which  does  not  impose  upon 
the  judges  the  obligation  of  considering  exclusive  political  control 
of  a  district  or  its  effective  colonization  as  equivalent  to  pre- 
scription, but  gives  them  permission  to  do  so.  Of  this  permission 
they  will  or  will  not  make  use,  according  to  the  reasons  which 
one  or  the  other  party  may  present  to  them.  Those  here  set  forth 
may  incline  them  not  to  make  use  of  this  permission. 

Prescription  is  subject  to  certain  conditions;  one  of  them 
should  be  applicable  to  the  case  here.  For  example,  it  cannot 
take  place  with  regard  to  the  sea,  as  was  sustained  by  Gieat 
Britain  in  the  question  of  the  fur  seals  of  Bering  Sea;  neither  can 
it  have  the  effect  of  relieving  the  fulfillment  of  obligations  of  a 
perpetual  character  agreed  upon  in  treaties;  much  less,  when  in 
addition  to  what  is  contained  in  the  Treaty  of  Munster,  there 
exists  that  of  Utrecht  of  1713,  in  which  the  following  was  agreed 
upon: 

"On  the  contrary,  that  the  Spanish  Dominions  in  the  West  Indies  may 
be  preserved  whole  and  entire,  the  Queen  of  Great  Britain  engages  that 
she  will  endeavor,  and  give  assistance  to  the  Spaniards,  that  the  ancient 


xvui 

hmita  of  their  dominions  in  the  West  Indies  be  restored  and  settled  as  they 
stood  in  the  time  of  the  aforesaid  Catholic  King,  Charles  II ;  and  if  it  shall 
appear  that  they  have  in  any  manner,  or  under  any  pretense,  been  broken 
into  and  lessened  in  any  part  since  the  death  of  the  aforesaid  Catholic 
King,  Charles  IT."     [That  was  in  1 700.] 

to  Which  may  be  added  that  by  the  Treaty  of  October  28,  1790,  it 
was  agreed  between  Spain  and  England  [Article  VI.]  that  "  with 
respect  to  the  Eastern  and  Western  Coasts  of  South  America, 
and  to  the  islands  adjacent,  that  no  settlement  shall  be  formed 
hereafter,  by  the  respective  Subjects,  in  such  parts  of  those 
Coasts  as  are  situated,  to  the  South  of  the  parts  of  the  same 
Coasts,  and  of  the  Islands  adjacent,  which  are  already  occupied 
by  Spain;  provided  that  the  same  respective  Subjects  shall  retain 
the  liberty  of  landing  on  the  Coasts  and  Islands  so  situated,  for 
the  purpose  of  their  Fishery  and  erecting  their  huts,  and  other 
temporary  buildings,  serving  only  for  these  purposes." 

According  to  the  first  of  these  articles  the  Dutch  were  pre- 
vented from  making  acquisitions  in  Guiana  that  should  alter  the 
status  quo  of  1700;  and  in  case  of  their  doing  so,  England  should 
aid  Spain  in  re-establishing  things  to  their  former  status. 

In  conformity  with  the  second,  England,  or  her  subjects,  were 
prohibited  from  forming  settlements  on  the  coast  to  the  South- 
ward of  the  Orinoco,  occupied  as  it  was  by  Spain;  a  prohibition 
which  must  have  been  in  force  since  1796,  when  Great  Britain 
captured  the  Dutcli  colonies  in  Guiana  and  retained  them  except 
for  a  brief  interval  between  1802  and  1803.     (^) 

As  we  are  now  si)eaking  of  prescription,  it  would  be  well 
to  boar  in  mind  the  argument  employed  in  the  Venezuelan  Case 
on  page  229.     It  reads  as  follows: 

•'  Venezuela  has  accepted  this  rule,  but  she  submits  and  will  claim  that 
time  18  but  one  of  many  elements  essential  tj  create  title  by  prescription. 
Prescription  to  he  eflFective  against  nations,  as  against  individuals,  must  he 
(fona  fide,   public,    notorious,    adverse,    exclusive,    peaceful,   continuous, 

«J'^■K^*,^'"'"'*  '*''"  '^'■'•'»b»>*'»tes  tUe  proposition  of  law  set  fortli  in  the  Venezuelan  Case 
under  No.  18,  pa|[a  229. 


i 


XIX 

uncontested,  and  maintained  under  a  claim  of  right.  Rule  (a)  fixes  fifty 
years  as  the  period  of  prescription,  but  leaves  the  other  elements  unim- 
paired." 

It  would  be  well  to  enumerate  in  that  connection  each  and 
every  one  of  the  protests  of  Venezuela,  and  other  acts  of  herself 
and  of  Spain  which  are  opposed  to  the  application  of  the  rule. 

The  same  may  likewise  be  observed  with  regard  to  what  is 
written  on  page  236  of  the  said  Case,  which  contains  this  argu- 
ment; 

"The  present  occupation  by  British  subjects  and  persons  under  British 
protection  having  been  effected  subsequent  to  1880,  in  the  interior,  and 
subsequent  to  1884  on  the  coist,  and  having  been  undertaken  after  due 
warning  from  the  Venezuelan  Government  that  titles  thus  sought  to  be 
acquired  would  not  be  recognized  by  it,  and  after  notice  from  the  British 
Government  that  persons  so  entering  into  said  territory  must  do  so  at  their 
own  peril,  said  subject  and  persons  may  be  regarded  by  Venezuela  as  mere 
trespassers,  and  Venezuela  is  under  no  obligation  to  recognize  any  British 
titles  which  such  subjects  or  persons  may  have  acquired  to  lands  situate 
within  said  territory." 

The  British  Case  contains  the  following  statement: 
"The  Venezuelan  Government  were  aware  of  the  position  of  the  bound- 
ary posts  erected  by  Schomburgk,  and  made  remonstrances  to  Her  Majesty's 
Government  upon  the  subject." 

It  would  not  have  been  improper  to  add,  that  not  alone  did 
Venezuela  protest  against  the  placing  of  the  posts,  but  also  secured 
an  order  for  their  removal,  together  with  the  declaration  that  they 
did  not  signify  any  act  of  jurisdiction,  being  merely  a  prelim- 
inary step  subject  to  future  discussion  between  the  two  Govern- 
ments. Further  than  this,  the  British  line  does  not  pass  through 
Barima,  but  through  the  Amacuro,  a  river  situated  to  the  west  of 
the  other.  Until  1886  the  Republic  had  no  notice  of  such  a  line, 
and  even  then  not  because  Great  Britain  informed  her  of  it.  It 
was  the  Governor  of  British  Guiana  who  mentioned  it  in  the  reply 
given  by  his  secretary  to  the  Venezuelan  Commissioners,  Dr. 
Jesus  Munoz  Tebar  and  General  Santiago  Rodill,  through  the 
Consul  of  this  country  in  Georgetown  on  January  8,  1887. 


XX 

In  the  British  Case  it  is  hinted  that  .Venezuela  should  not 
be  permitted  to  make  use  of  the  propositions  of  Lord  Aberdeen  in 
1844,  nor  of  Lord  Granville  in  1881,  because  she  did  not  accept 
them,  and  has  not  desired  any  compromise,  nor  anything  but  the 
decision  of  the  legal  question;  and  because  they  were  made  in  a 
spirit  of  indulgence  and  great  concession  in  the  hope  of  a  settle- 
ment, and  for  the  maintenance  of  friendly  relations.  But  Vene- 
zuela must  say  likewise  with  regard  to  the  offer  of  compromise 
presented  by  her  Minister,  Dr.  Jose  Maria  Rojas,  on  February  21, 
1881,  and  which  is  spoken  of  in  the  memorandum  which  General 
Guzman  Blanco  attached  to  his  note  of  July  29,  1896,  to  Lord 
Rosebery,  and  which  is  inserted  in  the  Case  of  the  Republic  under 
No.  591,  page  251. 

In  Volume  VI.  of  the  Appendix  lo   the  British  Case  is  in- 
serted a  document  entitled  "  Decree  of  the  Congress  of  Angostura 
—  a  Declaration  upon  the  Division  of  the  Territory  of  the  Mis- 
sions'—and is  taken  from  the  "  Documents  for  the  History  of  the 
Life  of  the  Liberator,"  Volume  V,  page  700.     It  is,  in  fact,  bound 
in  said  book,  and  was  dedicated  by  the  Permanent  Committee  of  the 
Sovereign  Congress  appointed  to  examine  the  report  made  by  the 
Chief  Commissioner  of  the  Missions  of  the  Caroni  as  to  the  num- 
ber of  districts  of  which  each  one  should  be  composed.     They  are 
reduced  to  five;  that  of  the  East,  including  the  towns  of  Palmar, 
Cumamo,  Miamo,  Carapo,  Tupuquen,  TurmeemoandCura;  that  of 
the  Center,  including  the  towns  of  Altagracia,  San  Antonio,  Guro, 
Tupapui,  Upata  and  Santa  Maria;  that  of  the  South,  containing 
those  of  Guacipati.   Pastora,    Ayma,   Avechcia,    Puedpa,   Santa 
Clara,  San  Serafin  and  San  Pedro  de  las  Bocas;  and  that  of  the 
Lower  Caroni,  containing  those  of  Caruache,  Murucuri,  Caroni. 
San  Felix  and  San  Miguel;  and  those  of  the  Lower  Orinoco,  con-| 
taining  those  of  Puga,  Piacoa,  Santa  Catalina,  Sacopana  and  all] 
of  the  villages  of  the  Indians  of  those  streams. 

The  authenticity  of  this  document  cannot  be  doubted,  pub- 
lished as  it  was  by  General  Jose  Felix  Blanco,  in  charge  of  those 


XXI 


Missions,  but  it  was  not  by  the  Congress  of  Angostura,  but  by  the 
Permanent  Committee,  which,  as  has  been  seen,  had  legislative 
powers.  It  is  well  to  observe  that  the  measure  referred  to  the 
Missions  of  the  Coroni  exclusively,  not  to  the  other  Spanish  Mis- 
sions established  in  the  territory  of  Guiana. 

In  the  same  official  table  of  the  Missions  of  Guiana  in  the 
Lower  Orinoco,  after  the  Capuchin  Missions  had  been  suppressed 
by  the  Spanish  Cortes,  in  1813,  which  is  dated  1816,  and  repro- 
duced in  the  British  Case,  Volume  VI,  page  6,  are  included  those 
of  Santa  Cruz  del  Calvario,  San  Antonio  de  Huiscatome,  San  Mi- 
guel de  Unata  and  San  Isidro  de  Barceloneta,  which  are  not  men- 
tioned in  the  decree  of  the  permanent  committee  of  the  Congress 
of  Angostura,  which  only  mentions  twenty-seven. 

In  the  same  category  are  found  those  of  Casacoima,  Agua- 
cagua,  Uyacoa,  Tupura,  Payaraima,  Suay,  &c.  E^ifty-seven  of 
them  appear  on  map  No.  15  of  the  United  States  Commission  at 
Washington. 

This  document  is  probably  produced  for  the  purpose  of  deny- 
ing the  value  of  the  work,  which  brought  to  light  the  fact  that 
three  Spanish  Missions  had  existed,  one  in  Mawaken,  in  the  Sipa- 
runi,  an  affluent  of  the  Essequibo;  another  in  Wenarau,  a  tribu- 
tary of  the  Cuyuni,  and  another  called  Queribura,  in  the  Maza- 
runi,   none  of  which  are  shown  in  the  decree  referred  to. 

But  this  may  be  answered  by  Article  2,  of  the  Treaty  of  March 
30,  1848,  in  which  Spain  recognizes  the  Republic  of  Venezuela  as  a 
free,  sovereign  and  independent  nation,  composed  of  the  prov- 
inces of  Margarita,  Guayana,  Cumana,  Barcelona,  Caracas,  Cara- 
bobo,  Barquisimeto,  Barinas,  A  pure  Merida,  Trujuillo  cmd  any 
other  territories  and  islands  that  may  belong  to  her. 

Venezuela  is  the  owner  of  many  islands,  and  no  one  will  dis- 
pute her  title  to  them  because  their  names  do  not  appear  in   this 
Treaty. 
B      Better  still,  in  former  years  several  Anglo-Americans  estab-  ^ 
Blished  themselves  in  the   Island  of  Aves,  near  that  of  Saba,  that 

I 


XXll 

no  law  had  included  among  those  belonging  to  Venezuela,  and  this 
Government,  under  the  claim  of  title,  expelled  them  therefrom. 
At  the  same  time,  Holland,  to  which  Saba  belongs,  claimed  it  as 
her  own,  and  agreed  to  submit  the  dispute  to  the  arbitration  of 
Spain.  The  evidence  of  both  parties  having  examined,  she  de- 
cided, on  the  3()th  of  June,  1865,  that  the  island  belonged  to  the 
Republic  of  Venezuela,  but  with  the  burden  of  indemnifying  Hol- 
land for  the  fishery  that  her  subjects  should  cease  to  enjoy,  if  in 
effect  they  were  deprived  of  it.  The  following  considerations  are 
worthy  of  note: 

"Considering  that  Venezuela,  on  her  part,  bases  her  right  principally 
on  that  of  Spain,  before  the  said  Republic  was  constituted  an  independent 
State,  and  although  it  appears  also,  that  Spain  did  not  materially  occupy 
the  territory  of  the  Aves  Island,  it  undoubtedly  belonged  to  herns  part  of  the 
West  Indies  which  were  under  the  dominion  of  the  Kings  of  Spain  according 
to  Law  15,  Chapter  15,  Book  2,  of  the  '  Recopilacion  de  Indias.'  Considering 
that  the  Aves  Island  must  have  formed  part  of  the  territory  under  the  jur- 
isdiction of  the  Court  of  Caracas,  when  the  latter  was  created  June  13, 
178(!,  and  that  when  Venezuela  became  an  independent  nation,  she  did  so 
with  the  territory  of  the  Captaincy  General  of  the  same  name,  declaring 
afterward  that  all  the  regulations  adopted  by  the  Spanish  Government  up 
to  1808,  were  in  force  in  the  new  State;  wherefore  the  Aves  Island  could 
be  considered  part  of  the   Spanish   province  of   Venezuela.     Considering 
that,  even  leaving  out  the  above  statement,  it  appears,  nevertheless,  that 
although  it  can  be  said  that  the  Aves  Island  was  never  actually  occupied  by 
Spain  or  inhabited  by  Spaniards,  neither  is  the  temporary  residence  thereon 
of  some  natives  of  Sabd  and  Saint  Eustace,  more  than  an  accidental  occupa- 
tion which  does  not  constitute  possession  ;  for  even  though  the  island  is  not 
capable  of  permanent  occupation,  on  account  of  the  floods  to  which  it  is  ex- 
posed, if  the  Dutch,  supposing  it  to  be  deserted  had  settled  upon  it  with 
the  purpose  of  permanent  occupation,  they  would  have  erected  some  Iniild- 
iugs,  and  would  have  endeavored  to  render  the  island  constantly  habitable; 
neither  of  which  was  done.     And  considering,  finally,  that  the  government 
of  the  Netherlands  had  done  nothing  on  said  island  but  utilize  the  fishing 
by  its  colonists,  whilst  the  government  of  Venezuela  has  been  the  first  to 
maintain  an  armed  force   there,  and  to  perform  acts  of  sovereignty,  thus 
confirming  the  dominion  she  acquired  through  a  general  title  derived  from 
Spain:  it  is  our  opinion,  it  conformitv  with  that  of  our  Ministerial  Council, 


xxm 

after  hearing  the  decision  of  our  whole  Council  of  State,  that  the  ownership 
of  the  island  in  question  belongs  to  the  Republic  of  Venezuela,  leaving 
to  her  the  charge  of  indemnity  for  the  fishing  which  the  Dutch  may  fail  to 
profit  by,  if,  in  truth,  they  are  prevented  from  utilizing  It^  in  which  case 
the  average  of  the  net  annual  proceeds  of  tlie  fishing  in  the  last  five  years, 
capitalized  at  5%  interest  will  serve  as  a  rate  of  valuation  for  said  in- 
demnity." [VENEZUELAN  INTERNATIONAL  LAW— BRITISH 
BOUNDARIES  OF  GUAYANA,  R.  F.  SEIJAS  (p.  833).] 

The  existence  of  the  three  missions  or  posts  above  named  is 
ascertained  from  ancient  Dutch  documents  discovered  by  Pro- 
fessor Burr;  and  these  cannot  be  impugned  by  the  British,  be- 
cause they  adduce  in  their  favor  others  taken  from  the  same 
Dutch  archives,  and  of  this  same  kind;  much  less  when  they  do 
not  give  any  better  reason  for  their  denial  than  the  assertion  of 
their  own  functionary,  Mr.  McTurk,  that  these  settlements  never 
existed. 

In  Volume  VII  of  the  Appendix  to  the  British  Case  there  is 
given  a  chronologic  list  of  the  principal  maps  of  Guiana.  Among 
them  is  found  the  map  of  the  Governor  of  that  Province,  Don 
Manuel  Centurion,  prepared  in  1770,  and  bearing  the  following 
title:  "General  Plan  of  the  Province  of  Guiana,  as  accurate  as 
possible,  and  with  respect  to  its  wide  circumference  and  unknown 
center,  prepared  with  the  information  acquired  up  to  December 
31,  1870,  by  the  Commandant  General  thereof,  Don  Manuel  Cen- 
turion." This  plan  is  reproduced  in  the  Atlas  accompanying  the 
British  Case  under  No.  24.  It  bears  the  date  December  31,  1770, 
and  is  the  same  as  one  of  the  three  which  this  Government  has, 
but  there  is  here  another  map  of  this  same  Centurion,  prepared, 
it  is  said,  upon  more  certain  information  and  better  acquaintance 
required  practically  up  to  April  5,  1770,  which  is  its  date.  This 
map  shows  four  fortresses  without  name,  the  villages  or  towns  of 
San  Felipe,  Esmeralda  and  six  more  without  name,  the  stronghold 
of  San  Carlos,  the  Jesuit  Missions  of  Santa  Barbara  and  nine 
more  without  names;  eighteen  missions  of  the  Capuchins  without 
the   names,  and   seven   missions  of    the   Franciscan   Observants 


xxiv 

without  names-in  all  thirty-five;  a  presidio  without  name, 
four  barracks  without  name.  Also,  and  differing  from  the  other 
map  reproduced  by  Great  Britain,  the  following  lands  are  shown 
to  be  under  cultivation:  two  [plantations]  on  the  banks  of  the 
Essequibo;  one  on  each  bank  of  the  Surinam;  one  on  the  left  bank 
and  two  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Copenham;  two  on  the  right 
and  one  on  the  left  of  the  Corentin;  one  on  each  bank  of  the 
Berbi,  and  one  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Demarari. 

It  is  understood  that  these  are  Dutch  plantations  and  it  is 
noted  that  none  of  them  are  to  be  found  on  the  banks  of  the 
Moroco,  nor  of  the  Pomeroon. 

On  the  map  of  Centurion  this  note  is  placed  in  the  British 
document: 

"On  this  map,  drawn  to  illustrate  Centurion's  reports  and  recom- 
niendatious,  the  boundary  is  drawn  in  accordance  with  the  extreme  Spanish 
view,  viz.,  from  the  right  bank  of  the  Moruka,  past  the  source  of  the 
I'ovaron  (Pomeroon),  crossing  the  Essequibo  a  few  miles  above  its  junction 
with  the  Massaruni,  and  then  turning  almost  due  east,  so,  as  to  confine  the 
Dutcli  Colonies  to  a  strip  of  coast,  and  cut  off  the  whole  Hinterland. 

The  Mission  stations  are  marked,  but  not  named,  and  are  shown  as  lying 
between  the  head-waters  of  the  Yuruari,  the  course  of  the  Imataka,  and 
the  source  of  the  Caroni  River.  St.  Thome  is  at  Angostura,  and  there  is 
no  mark  of  Spanish  occupation  east  of  the  Orinoco,  save  the  Missions." 

In  the  first  place,  if  the  map  is  drawn  showing  the  line  be- 
tween Spain  and  Holland  to  be  at  the  Moroco,  this  is  only  to  rep- 
resent possession  in  fact.  As  to  right,  what  Centurion  thought 
has  been  shown  in  the  following  report  sent  to  Spain  on  Novem- 
ber 11,  1773,  in  pursuance  of  the  Royal  Order  of  July  24,  1772.  It 
reads  as  follows: 

'•  In  punctual  and  complete  obedience  to  your  Highness'  commands  I 
have  to  report  as  follows: 

This  Province  of  Guaiana  is  the  most  easterly  part  of  the  King's 
Dominions  in  South  America  ou  the  north  coast,  and  its  boundaries  are: 
On  the  north,  the  Lower  Orinoco,  the  southern  boundary  of  the  Provinces 
of  OumanAand  Caracas;  on  the  east,  (fie  Atlantic  Ocean;  on  the  south  the 
great  river  of  the  Amazons;  and  ou  the  west  the  Rio  Negro,  the  Canon  of 


XXV 


I 


the  Casiquiari,  and  the  Upper  Orinoco,  boundary  of  the  eastern  and  unex- 
plored part  of  the  Kingdom  of  Santa  Fe. 

On  the  confines  or  limits  of  the  vast  region  of  this  Province  [of  Guiana] 
the  French  and  Dutch  have  occupied  the  whole  sea-coast  with  their 
Colonies— the  French  in  Cayenne,  round  the  mouth  of  the  Amazon,  and 
the  Dutch  in  Surinam,  BerUz  and  Essequibo,  fifty-five  or  sixty  leagues 
from  the  Great  Mouth  of  the  Orinoco. " 

This  document  is  published  in  Volume  IV  of  the  Appendix  to 
the  British  Case,  under  No.  518,  paragraph  3, 

In  another  report  of  the  same  Centurion,  also  printed  therein 
under  No.  483,  he  says  to  his  Government:  that  the  Dutch  did  not 
have  in  the  Cuyuni  any  possessions  except  a  settlement  IplantajeJ 
at  the  place  where  it  empties  into  the  Essequibo;  that  having 
wished  to  establish,  fifteen  or  twenty  leagues  further  up  in  1747,  a 
post  and  guard  for  the  purpose  of  enslaving  Indians  in  Spanish 
territory  by  means  of  the  Caribs,  as  soon  as  the  missionaries  were 
assured  thereof,  they  informed  the  Commandant  of  Guiana,  and 
he  dislodged  them  from  there  the  following  year,  1758,  by  a 
detachment  of  soldiers,  and  burned  the  post  and  carried  away 
prisoners  the  two  Dutchmen,  the  negro  and  Caribs  which  they 
found,  with  the  instructions  and  original  documents,  which 
showed  the  infamous  commerce  which,  by  order  of  the  Director 
of  Essequibo,  and  for  his  vile  interest,  that  guard  as  w^ell  as  all  the 
other  advanced  posts  of  the  Colony,  bled  the  Spaniards  to  the 
heart  or  center  of  the  province  of  Guiana. 

Centurion  also  adds  the  following: 

"It  is  also  shown  in  document  No.  1,  that  the  Dutch  are  not  in  posses- 
sion of  the  Masaruni,  nor  of  the  other  rivers  that  flow  into  the  Essequibo  on 
the  south-west  side.  And  it  would  be  well  to  undeceive  them  of  this  error, 
from  which  their  unfounded  complaints  arise.  For,  as  the  Essequibo  runs 
neariy  parallel  to  the  sea-coast,  from  the  vicinity  of  the  Corentyne  to  where 
it  flows  out  into  the  sea,  forty-five  leagues  to  the  east  of  the  mouth  of  the 
Orinoco,  all  the  rivers  which  take  their  rise  in  the  center  of  our  Province 
of  Guayana  and  flow  toward  the  coast  extending  between  the  mouths  of  the 
Corentyne  and  Essequibo,  actually  meet  the  Essequibo,  which  crosses  and 
Absorbs  them. 


XXVI 

So  that  if,  as  the  Dutch  suppose,  the  territory  which  is  comprised  by 
the  rivers  flowing  into  the  Esserjuilw,  and  which  are  the  Cuyuni,  Maseruni, 
Mao,  Apanoni,  Patara,  and  other  smaller  ones,  with  their  arms  and  streams, 
were  territory  of  the  Republic,  the  foreigners  would  have  a  greater  part  of 
the  Province  of  Guayana  than  the  King  our  Sovereign,  as  is  shown  on  the 
enclosed  map,  which  with  all  possible  exactitude,  I  have  drawn  for  this 
report,  indicating  thereon,  by  a  yellow  line,  what,  in  my  opinion,  the 
Dutch  may  claim  in  virtue  of  any  right  of  possession  acquired  [in  any 
manner]  up  to  the  present  day."  • 

Noting  in  passing  that  the  English  translation  omits  the  three 
underlined  words  *'  in  any  manner,''^  attention  is  called  to  the 
fact  that  Centurion  gave  positive  assurance  that  the  Dutch  were 
not  in  possession  of  the  Mazeruni,  nor  of  the  Cuyuni,  nor  of  the 
Mao,  nor  of  the  Apanoni,  nor  of  the  Patara,  as  was  likewise 
affirmed  by  the  witnesses  called  upon  to  testify  as  to  the  cause  of 
the  Dutch  complaint. 

Now,  it  is  not  true  that  the  Moroco  line  was  the  extreme  Span- 
ish pretension,  as  was  alleged  in  the  British  Case.  This  is  quite 
the  contrary  of  the  ttulh,  as  is  shown  by  the  fact  that,  after  1770, 
the  date  of  Centurion's  map,  came  the  Treaty  of  Extradition  of 
1792,  which  placed  the  Dutch  in  the  Essequibo,  Demerari,  Berbice 
and  Suiinam;  and  by  the  Royal  Order  of  October  1,  1780,  approv- 
ing the  plan  of  Inciarte  to  build  two  forts  to  protect  from  the 
Essequibo  Dutch,  the  town  which  was  to  be  founded  near  the  said 
river.  Previously,  in  1737  and  1743,  the  Marquis  de  Terranova 
[Torrenueval  had  recommended  the  settlement  of  a  province 
which  should  prevent  the  Dutch  from  passing  to  the  westward  of 
the  Essequibo  river,  and  the  construction  of  a  fort  at  its  mouth, 
which  should  serve  as  a  protection  to  the  town  to  be  founded  as 
the  capital  of  that  new  province  (Volume  II  of  the  Appendix  of 
of  the  British  Case,  No.  225).  It  is  likewise  opposed  to  what,  ac- 
cording to  Professor  Burr,  the  Governor  of  Guiana  claimed  in 
176D,  assuring  the  Counsellor  of  the  Dutch  Colonies  that  the 
boundary  was  in  the  Oene,  its  affluent  on  the  left.  Thus  says 
Mr.   Buissan,   Counsellor  in  Essequibo,  to  the   Director-General 


I 


XXVIl 

of  Essequibo,  on  December  third  of  that  year,  writing  in  these 
words: 

"  I  cannot  neglect  to  communicate  to  your  Excellency  that  Pedro 
Sanchos  has  come  from  Orinoco  with  the  bad  news  that  in  a  month  or  sit 
weeks  two  boats  will  come  with  as  many  as  fifty  or  sixty  men  as  far  as  in 
Pomeroon  to  carry  off  the  Indians,  and  then,  I  fear,  plantations  will  surely 
be  pillaged;  for  this  Governor  sets  his  boundaries  as  far  as  the  banks  of 
Gene,  ivhere  James  Fanning  lives.  I  do  not  doubt  but  many  black  and  red 
slaves  will  go  over  to  them;  and  who  will  get  them  back  from  them?  *  *  * 

I  once  told  your  Excellency  that  the  Spaniards  claim  Pomeroon;  the 
end  of  this  will  shortly  be  seen.     *     *     * 

Pedro  Sanchos  will,  before  this  reaches  you,  already  have  made  the  com- 
munication to  your  Excellency."  [Extracts  from  Dutch  Archives,  Docu- 
ment No.  281.] 

In  the  same  Volume,  Document  No.  172,  page  333,  it  is  seen 
that  the  Spaniards  were  trading  with  the  Colonists  inhabiting  the 
Upper  Essequibo. 

Finally,  in  the  report  of  Professor  Burr  upon  the  Dutch  claims 
in  Guiana,  it  is  seen  on  page  368  that  in  the  dispute  between  the 
Zeeland  Chamber  and  that  of  Amsterdam  in  1750,  the  latter  denied 
that: 

"colony  of  'Essequibo  and  appurtenant  rivers'  included  of  right  any- 
thing more  than  the  Essequibo  and  its  tributaries,  and  did  not  fail  to  point 
out  that  the  various  utterances  of  the  Zeeland  Chamber  itself  were  incon- 
sistent with  each  other  in  their  statement  of  the  boundaries." 

In  the  second  place,  the  British  Case  says,  with  regard  to  the 
point  referred  to,  that  Centurion  reduced  the  Dutch  Colonies  to  a 
strip  of  coast,  and  separated  from  the  whole  Hinterland. 

'rhe  Spanish  Governor  delineated,  as  is  said,  the  part  which  the 
Dutch  occupied  in  fact,  and  no  more;  because,  as  the  Commandant 
General  of  Venezuela  explained  in  his  instructions  issued  on  Feb- 
ruary 4, 1779,  to  the  ofificer,  Don  Jose  Felipe  de  Inciarte,  to  found 
towns  in  the  Province  of  Guiana: 

"The  said  Dutch  Colony  of  Essequibo,  and  the  others  which  the 
States-General  possess  on  that  coast,  are  all  in  general  on  the  banks  of  the 


XXVlll 

rivers,  close  to  the  sea-shore,  and  do  hot  penetrate  far  into  the  interior  of 
the  country." 

Lord  Salisbury  wrote,  on  the  18th  of  May,  1896,  as  follows: 
'•  All  the  great  nations  in  both  hemispheres  claim,  and  are  prepared  to 
defenfl,  their  right  to  vast  tracts  of  territory  which  they  have  in  no  sense 
occupied,  and  often  have  not  fully  explored.  The  modern  doctrine  of 
'Hinterland,'  with  its  inevitable  contradictions,  indicates  the  unformed 
and  unstable  condition  of  international  law  as  applied  to  territorial  claims 
resting  on  constructive  occupation  or  control." 

Mr.  Olney  replied  to  this  on  the  22d  of  June,  and  after  repeat- 
ing it  in  extract  said: 

•'But  it  cannot  be  irrelevant  to  remark  that  'spheres  of  influence* 
and  the  theory  or  practice  of  the  '  Hinterland '  idea  are  things  unknown 
to  international  law,  and  do  not  as  yet  rest  upon  any  recognized  princi- 
ples of  either  international  or  municipal  law.  They  are  new  departures 
which  certain  great  European  powers  have  found  necessary  and  convenient 
in  the  course  of  their  division  among  themselves  of  great  tracts  of  the  con- 
tinent of  Africa,  and  which  find  their  sanction  solely  in  their  reciprocal 
stipulutions.  *  Such  agreements,'  declares  a  modern  English  writer  on  in- 
ternational law,  '  remove  the  causes  of  present  disputes  ;  but  if  they  are  to 
stand  the  tests  of  time,  by  what  right  will  they  stiind  ?  We  hear  much  of  a 
certain  "  Hinterland"  doctrine.  The  accepted  rule  as  to  the  area  of  terri- 
tory affected  by  an  act  of  occupation  in  a  land  of  large  extent  has  been  that 
the  cn-stof  the  water-shed  is  the  presumptive  interior  limit,  while  the  flank 
boundaries  are  the  limits  of  the  land  watered  by  the  rivers  debouching  at 
the  point  of  coast  occupied.  The  extent  of  territory  claimed  in  respect  of 
an  occupation  on  the  cojist  has  hitherto  borne  some  reasonable  ratio  to  the 
character  of  the  occupation.  But  where  is  the  limit  to  the  "Hinterland  " 
doctrine?  Either  these  international  arrangements  can  avail  as  between 
the  parties  only,  and  constitute  no  bar  against  the  action  of  any  intruding 
flti-anxer,  or  might  indeed  is  right.'  Without  adopting  this  criticism,  and 
whether  the  'spheres  of  influence  '  and  the  '  Hinterland'  doctrines  he  or  be 
not  intrinsiftilly  sound  and  just,  there  can  be,  m  pretense  that  they  apply  to 
the  American  continents  or  to  any  boundary  disputei  that  noio  exist  there 
or  may  herafter  arise. '' 

With  regard  to  Hinterland,  it  has  already  been  observed  that, 
according  to  the  Publicist,  Francis  Despagnet,  the  excuse  of  the 
preceding  consists  in  fixing,  by  means  of  an  international  agree 


ZXIX 

inent,  a  topographical  line,  within  which  each  country  has  the 
light  to  occupy  or  establish  a  protectorate  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
other  contracting  state  ;  this  is  its  Hinterland  or  territory  within 
the  conventional  line.  In  turn,  each  contracting  country  obligates 
itself  not  to  make  any  attempt  to  acquire  territory  nor  to  dispute 
the  influence  of  the  other  state  beyond  the  h'ne  fixed.  In  practice, 
Hinterland  is  the  prolongation  toward  the  interior  of  a  territory 
first  occupied  on  the  coasts,  to  the  limit  of  the  possessions  of  the 
other  contracting  state,  or  of  the  Hinterland,  which  may  be  recog- 
nized in  the  treaty.  Despagnet  cites  what  the  German  Chancellor 
said  on  the  30th  December,  1880,  to  wit :  "It  does  not  treat  so 
much  of  fixing  the  frontiers  in  conformity  with  the  state  of 
,    actual  possession,  as  it  is  the  coming   to  an   undei-standing  as 

r    to  the  spheres  of   reciprocal  interest  in  the  future,"  and  adds, 

r 

i    OQ  his  part,  that    there    is  mucli  analogy  between    the    actual 

[    system  of  Hinterland,  and  the  a  priori  limits  of  the  spheres  of 
influence  established  m  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries  be- 
■    tween  the  colonizing  nations  by  the  Holy  See;  that  the  famous 
I    Bull  of  Alexander  Vf,  of  March  4,  Ui)3,  is  only  the  limitation  of 
i    a  vast  Hinterland  divided  among  the  Spaniards  and  the  Portu- 
guese;  and,  when  these  two  nations,  pooi'ly  satisfied  with  the 
papal  decision,  modified  the  frontiers  drawn  by  the  pontifical  sover- 
eign,  by  the  Treaty  of  Tordesillas,  of  June  3,  1494,  they  entered 
into  a  convention  that  does  not  difl^er  from  modern  treaties  regu- 
lating the  Hinterland,  except  as  to  the  extent  of  its  application 
and  the  spirit  of  submission  toward  the  Pope,  to  whom  they  were 
subordinate,  because  Julius  II.  had  to  approve  it  in  1509;  that  the 
same  Hinterland    system  appears  organized  in   vaiious  recent 
treaties,  those  made  between  France  and  England  in  1843,  re- 
garding the  islands  of  the  Hebrides,  and  the  Leeward  Islands  of 
Tahiti;  and  with  respect  to  Africa,  by  those  concluded  between 
England  and  Germany  in  Eastern  Africa  and  in  Zanzibar  in  1886 
and  in  1890,  etc.,  etc.     That  explanation  makes  clear  that  the  so- 
called  Hinderland  doctrine  of  sphere  of  influence  is  a  new  inven- 


XXX 

tion  of  the  great  powers  which  are  dividing,  according  to  their 
fancy,  the  territories  of  Africa,  considered  as  barbarous  and 
susceptible  of  acquisition  by  the  first  occupant.  Consequently  it 
has  not,  nor  can  it  have  any  application  except  between  the 
contracting  nations;  and  Venezuela  not  being  one  of  them, 
and  Spain,  from  whom  she  derives  her  territorial  rights, 
also  never  having  been  one,  it  is  not  conceived  why  the  British 
Case  invokes  it  against  the  Republic.  If  it  is  true  that  the  Bull 
of  1493  was  nothing  but  the  limitation  of  a  vast  Hinterland  be- 
tween the  Spaniards  and  the  Portuguese;  and  if  the  Treaty  of 
Tordesillas,  by  which  they  substituted  the  Hne  of  papal  demarca- 
tion, does  not  differ  from  modern  treaties  of  Hinterland,  except 
in  the  extent  of  its  application,  and  the  spirit  of  submission  to  the 
Supreme  Pontiff,  who  approved  it  in  1509,  then  the  British  have 
less  reason  to  allege  it,  because  it  was  only  issued  by  the  one  who 
then  held  the  necessary  authority  to  do  so,  in  favor  of  Spain  and 
of  Portugal,  and  to  the  exclusion  thereby  of  all  the  other  states. 
It  has  already  been  shown  that  in  that  epoch  all  Christian  Prin- 
ces recognized  the  validity  of  those  Bulls,  and  to  one  of  them  the 
English  owed  the  acquisition  of  Ireland.  At  all  events,  as  Spain 
was  the  first  occupant  of  Guiana,  the  doctrine  of  Hinterland  could 
benefit  her  alone. 

Until  now  the  civilized  world  has  never  thought  the  native  in- 
habitants, either  of  the  old  or  the  new  hemisphere,  to  have  suf- 
ficient capacity  to  constitute  States,  nor  to  obtain  the  rights  of 
such.  Their  wishes  have  never  been  taken  into  any  account 
whatever,  and  when,  as  in  Africa,  effect  has  sought  to  have  been 
given  to  treaties  concluded  with  them,  such  have  been  held,  and 
not  without  reason,  to  be  merely  farcical. 

As  Salamon  says,  the  celebration  of  a  treaty  cannot  be  con- 
ceived of,  because  it  cannot  be  seen  with  whom  it  can  be  made 
and  what  could  be  its  object.  The  cession  of  sovereign  rights  by 
those  who  do  not  possess  any,  cannot  be  comprehended.  The 
acquisition    of  sovereignty   will  follow  as  a  consequence  of  the 


XXXI 

occupation,  and  not  of  the  treaty.  The  same  when  there  exists 
in  the  territory  a  species  of  rudimentary  sovereignty.  In  order 
to  obviate  the  incongruity  of  these  cessions,  there  has  been  con- 
ceived the  idea  of  inserting  a  clause  stating  that  *'  the  Sultan 
cedes  all  the  rights  which  constitute  the  notion  of  sovereignty,  as 
is  understood  in  the  public  law  of  Germany."  It  also  happens 
many  times  that  the  petty  king  cedes  his  rights  successively  to 
various  states  as  a  means  of  increasing  his  income  in  the  shape  of 
brandy,  powder  and  other  products  which  please  him. 

By  such  means,  and  with  presents  of  canes  with  silver  heads, 
laces,  thiee  cornered  hats  and  coats,  and  military  insignia,  the 
English  have  obtained  whatever  they  desired  from  the  Indians. 
What  value  can  their  affidavits  have?  Likewise  of  what  value 
are  those  of  British  officers,  such  as  McTurk  and  im  Thurm,  who 
are  themselves  both  parties  and  witnesses? 

Caracas,  May  10,  1898. 

(Signed)        Rafael  Seijas. 


COMMENTS     AND     CRITICISMS     ON     THE 

COUNTER-CASES    OF    VENEZUELA 

AND    GREAT   BRITAIN. 

[Translation.^ 

Mr.  Minister:  You  had  the  goodness  to  communicate  to  me  the 
letter  which  the  counsel  of  Venezuela  in  the  boundary  question 
between  that  country  and  British  Guiana,  addressed  on  the  Gth  of 
August  last  to  Sefior  Jose  Andrade,  Envoy  Extraordinary  and 
Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  the  Republic,  at  Washington. 

That  paper  speaks  favorably  of  several  of  the  notes  which  I 
have  written  with  regard  to  the  same  case  \n  the  character  of 
Counsellor  to  the  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs,  and  pursuant  to 


XXXll 

your  orders,  and  in  the  light  of  the  official  documents  submitted 
for  my  examination.  One  of  my  notes  was  upon  the  Papal  Bulls, 
which  divided  a  large  part  of  the  world  between  the  Spanish  and 
Portuguese,  and  the  argument  has  found  place  in  the  Counter 
Case  of  Venezuela,  which  also  mentions  that  derived  from  the 
Spanish- English  Treaty  of  1670,  in  which  the  British  monarchy 
recognized  the  dominion  of  Spain  over  the  whole  of  America  and 
its  islands.  Among  the  documents  included  in  Volume  II  of  the 
Appendix  to  the  Counter  Case  there  appear  certain  observations 
which  I  made,  upon  errors  in  the  British  Case,  as  to  certain  polit- 
ical information  regarding  Venezuela,  New  Grenada  and  Ecuador, 
and  as  to  the  supposed  decree  of  Bolivar  relating  to  the  bounda- 
ries of  Guiana. 

I  beg  that  you  will  express  my  sincere  satisfaction  to  see  that 
my  modest  eflforts  in  the  hope  of  attaining  this  object  may  con- 
tribute something  to  the  defense  of  Venezuela. 

Filled  with  that  hope  I  have  read  once  more  the  Counter  Cases 
of  Venezuela  and  Great  Britain,  and  propose  to  here  set  forth 
some  of  the  reflections  which  the  study  thereof  has  suggested. 

It  seems  to  me  that  Great  Britain  does  not  withdraw  any  of 
her  claims  in  spite  of  the  Case  having  demonstrated  their  ex- 
orbitance and  injustice,  and  insists  upon  the  enlarged  Schomburgk 
line  with  a  tenacity  worthy  of  a  better  cause. 

The  British  tell  us  that  the  failure  of  Dutch  occupation  in  cer- 
tain places  does  not  make  them  Spanish  or  Venezuelan  in  default 
of  proof  that  Spain  or  Venezuela  had  a  right  to  them  by  occupation. 
The  principles  of  contiguity  and  territorial  unity,  which  are  cer- 
tainly of  much  weight,  have  been  alleged  in  vain.  But  it  has  been 
deemed  well  to  reinforce  them,  and  for  no  other  purpose  was  there 
invoked  the  Papal  Bulls,  the  declaration  of  the  King  of  Spain  made 
in  the  Laws  of  the  Recopilacion  de  Indias,  and  the  treaties  of  1670 
and  thereafter,  in  which  Great  Britain  asked  and  received  from 
Spain  a  renunciation  and  cession  of  the  American  territories 
which  had  been  taken  possession  of  by  the  Kings  and  subjects 


xxxiii 
of  Great  Britain,  only  because  she  did  not  have  them  in  her  ma- 
terial possession.  Admitting,  then,  the  value  of  the  Papal  Bull 
of  1498,  which  no  one  could  understand  more  perfectly  than 
Spain  and  Portugal,  it  results  that  the  part  of  Guayana  adjudged 
to  Spain  rightly  belonged  to  her,  whether  it  was  occupied  or  not, 
whether  inhabited  or  deserted,  whether  in  the  interior  or  on  the 
coast,  or  whether  possessed  in  peace  or  perturbed  by  the  intru- 
sion of  contrabandists  or  filibusters;  and  this  even  setting  aside 
the  title  of  contiguity,  which  would  at  once  suffice. 

But  we  cannot  shut  our  eyes  to  the  value  of  Article  7  of  the 
Treaty  of  Madrid  of  July  16,  167o,  renewed  in  1718,  1708  and  1783, 
in  which  it  was  agreed  that  "The  Most  Serene  King  of  Great 
Biitain,  His  heirs  and  successors,  shall  have,  hold,  keep  and  enjoy 
forever,  with  plenary  right  of  sovereignty,  dominion,  possession 
and  property,  all  those  lands,  regions,  islands,  colonies  and  places 
ivhalsoever,  being  orsitimted  in  the  West  Indies,  or  in  any  part  of 
America,  ivhich  the  said  King  of  Great  Britain,  and  His 
subjects,  do  at  present  hold  and  possess,  so  as  that  in  regard 
thereof,  or  upon  any  colour  or  pretence  ivhatsoeuer,  nothing  more 
may,  or  ought  to,  he  urged,  nor  any  question  or  controversy  be 
ever  moved  concerning  the  same  hereafter.''^ 

From  the  observations  with  regard  to  Article  7,  made  by  the 
compilers  of  treaties,  Don  Jose  Antonio  de  Abren  y  Berto- 
dano,  and  Cantillo,  it  is  seen  that  the  Crown  of  Spain  thereby  as- 
sured to  the  British  King  the  dominion  of  all  territories  that  he 
at  that  time  possessed  in  America;  that  not  having  specified  the 
territory  ceded  in  this  manner,  the  article  thereafter  came  to  be 
the  cause  of  innumerable  disagreements  between  the  two 
monarchies. 

But  the  argument  derived  from  the  treaty  cannot  be  answered, 
and  it  is  well  thus  to  amplify  it  in  every  way,  because  to- 
gether with  that  of  the  ousting  of  the  Dutch  who  in  1758  were  in 
the  Cuyuni  Post,  and  that  of  those  who  were  in  Baiima  in  1769, 
and  likewise  the  various  raids  made  into  the  Moruca  and  the 


xxxiv 

Pomeroon,  and  the  capturing  of  foreign  ships  in  the  Orinoco,  are 
among  the  most  powerful  arguments  which  we  have  to  use  in  this 

contest. 

If,  as  Great  Britain  here  claims,  Spain  did  not  possess  in 
Guiana  more  than  the  Orinoco,  and  if,  in  the  rest  of  America,  her 
rights  extended  only  to  what  was  discovered  and  occupied  by 
her  then  why  did  the  British  King  request  of  her  the  confirmation 
to  him,  his  heirs  and  successors  in  plenary  sovereignty  and  posses- 
sion, all  the  lands,  provinces,  islands,  colonies  and  dominions  in 
the  West  Indies  or  any  other  part  of  America,  which  the  King  of 
Great  Biitain  and  his  subjects  possessed  in  1670,  so  that  they 
neither  could  nor  should  ever  pretend  any  other  thing,  nor  there- 
after move  any  controversy  whatever  regarding  it? 

It  seems  to  me  that  this  was  equivalent  to  the  recognition  of 
the  grants  made  by  the  Papal  Bulls  to  the  Kings  of  Spain,  and 
agrees  with  the  value  attributed  to  them  by  the  British  Crown, 
and  which  is  referred  to  in  the  book  of  Mr.  Harrisse. 

I  understand  that  the  same  recognition  was  given  to  them  by 
France  in  the  Florida  case,  cited  elsewhere  upon  the  authority  of 
the  diplomat,  publicist  and  historian,  Bancroft;  and  the  Dutch 
themselves,  in  the  act  of  accepting  from  Spain  by  the  Treaty  of 
MUnster,  the  possession  and  enjoyment  of  the  lordships,  towns, 
castles,  fortresses,  commerce  and  countries  of  the  West  Indies, 
as  also  in  Brazil,  and  on  the  coasts  of  Asia,  Africa  and  America 
respectively,  that  the  States-General  of  the  United  Provinces  held 
and  possessed,  including  especially  the  forts  and  places  which  the 
Portuguese  had  taken  from  those  States  and  occupied  since  the 
year  i«41;  as  also  the  forts  and  places  which  the  said  States  should 
come  to  conquer  and  possess  thereafter  without  infraction  of  said 
treaty. 

Since  1580  the  Dutch,  then  subjects  of  Spain,  had  rebelled 
against  her  to  throw  off  the  yoke  and  convert  themselves  into  a 
soveioign  and  independent  nation.  Upon  obtaining  this  end,  in 
1648,  as  a  termination  of  the  war  carried  on  for  this  purpose, 


XXXV 

their  former  sovereign  agreed  to  leave  in  their  power,  or  cede  to 
them,  which  is  the  same  thing,  the  conquests  made  by  them  dur- 
ing the  struggle;  the  one  case  outside  of  that  of  total  conquest  in 
in  which  belligerent  acquisition  takes  effect  in  modern  times. 
This  being  so,  and  no  one  being  able  to  convey  anything  but  his 
own  property,  and  not  that  of  others,  it  is  clear  that  the  Dutch 
occupations  in  Guiana,  which  were  the  subject  of  the  cession  con- 
tained in  the  treaty,  had  been  effected  in  the  territory  of  Spain, 
who  could  thus  renounce  them  in  favor  of  the  new  nation  which 
was  taking  its  place  among  the  powers  of  the  world. 

Regarding  the  conquests  made  by  the  Dutch  in  Brazil,  a  part 
of    America,   and    as    such    belonging  likewise   to    Spain,    she 
agreed  to  restore  them  to  the  Dutch,  thus  annulling  the  action  of 
the  Portuguese,  also  her  subjects  since  1580,  but  who  had  made 
themselves   odious    by    reason    of    their  also    aspiring   to   inde- 
pendence.      These     Portuguese    had      formed     expeditions    to 
Brazil    with    the    object    of    conquering    and    appropriating    it, 
as  in  the  end  they   succeeded    in  doing.     What  the  treaty  says 
with    regard   to    those    places    which    the    Dutch    might    come 
to    conquer    and    possess    from    1648    onwards   undoubtedly  re- 
ferred to  the  same  territory  of  Brazil  which  the  Portuguese  were 
already  disputing  with  them,  and  was  done  as  an  act  of  hostility 
against  the  Portuguese,  being  nothing  more  nor  less  than  the  said 
restoration  of  the  conquests  made  by  them  from  the  Dutch  in  the 
same  Brazilian  country.     If  Spain  had  not  thought  it  hers,  and  the 
Portuguese  subjects  of  her  Ciown,  she  could  not  well  have  done 
one  or  the  other  thing  without  offending  them,  and  whoever  was 
the  owner  of  the  territory.     There  does  not  exist  any  other  expla- 
nation for  such  an  agreement. 

To  agree,  as  stated  in  Blue  Book,  No.  1,  page  7,  '' that  the 
Treaty  [of  Munster']  confirmed  the  Dutch  in  all  the  possessions 
which  they  had  at  that  time  acquired  in  South  America,  and  gave 
them  liberty  to  make  fresh  acquisitions  wherever  the  Spaniards 
were  not  already  established ;''  is  in  the  first  part  of  the  proposi- 


xxxvi 

tion  au  evident  truth,  but  which  proves  that  those  possessions  up 
to  that  time  were  Spanish;  and  as  to  the  second,  Spain  appears 
also  disposing  of  places  in  which  she  had  not  then  settled,  but 
which  she  nevertheless  recognized  as  heis.  It  has  been  proven 
that  this  last  grant  did  not  refer  to  Guiana  but  to  Brazil,  and  to  no 
other  kind  of  acquisitions  than  those  proceeding  from  conquest; 
which,  as  has  been  said,  was  agreed  in  odium  of  the  Portuguese, 
who  were  already  in  revolt. 

Be  that  as  it  may,  those  affirmations  of  the  British  defense 
form  the  meshes  of  a  net  in  which  she  entangles  herself,  because 
they  involve  precisely  the  confession  of  that  which  they  deny. 
At  each  step  this  truth  is  apparent  in  the  documents  so  far  pro- 
duced by  Great  Britain.  They  say  that  "between  1621  and  1648 
the  Dutch  commanded  the  whole  coast  of  Guiana  as  far  as 
Trinidad";  that  '*in  1637  and  1638  they  were  found  settled  in  the 
Araacuro";  that  "during  the  whole  of  this  period  (prior  to  1648) 
the  Dutch  were  masters  of  the  sea  in  the  neighborhood  of  the 
mouth  of  the  Orinoco";  that  "  they  w^e re  always  present  at  the 
west  of  the  Moroco  and  controlled  it";  that  servants  of  the  Dutch 
West  India  Company  were  residim/  in  the  Barima  and  the  Pom- 
eroon  in  the  year  1683;  "  that  "the  Dutch  before  1648  controlled 
the  Cuyuni  and  Mazaruni  basin,"  etc. 

Place  these  propositions  beside  those  before  referred  to,  viz. : 
"  that  the  Treaty  [of  Munster]  confirmed  the  Dutch  in  all  the 
possessions  which  they  had  at  that  time  acquired  in  South 
America,  and  gave  them  liberty  to  make  fresh  acquisitions 
wherever  the  Spaniards  were  not  already  established;"  and  without 
losing  sight  of  the  fact  that  in  that  treaty  only  Spain  and  the  Low 
Countries  were  parties,  it  is  necessary  to  agree  that  the  confirma- 
tion of  such  possessions  as  were  acquired  by  them  in  South 
America  presumes  to  be  in  Spain,  to  whom  it  was  due,  the  right 
to  do  80,  or,  what  is  the  same  thing,  that  South  America  belonged 
to  Spain,  and  she  could  dispose  of  the  same  as  she  saw  fit  in  the 


XXXVll 

employment  cf  the  powers  inherent  in  international  domain  or 
State  sovereignty. 

In  no  other  manner  is  it  conceived  that  Spain  could  have  con- 
ceded to  the  Dutch,  and  even  ex  post  facto,  territories  in  South 
America,  any  more  than  that  they  could  accept  them.  If  Spain 
were  not  the  owner  of  those  territories,  and  they  were  open  to 
the  occupation  of  all  the  powers,  as  strenuously  claimed  by  the 
Dutch  when  once  they  were  recognized  as  a  sovereign  nation, 
there  would  not  have  been  the  least  necessity  for  Spain  to  confirm 
to  them  these  intrinsically  legitimate  acquisitions.  The  agree- 
ment in  the  Treaty  of  Munster  between  Spain  and  Holland  is  an 
irrefutable  argument  that  the  Dutch  recognized  in  Spain  the 
power  to  grant  them  rights  in  Guiana. 

It  is  absurd  to  say  that  the  part  relating  to  the  future  con- 
quests by  the  Dutch  referred  to  Spanish  places,  because  Spain 
considered  all  that  region  hers,  and  indispensable  to  the  security 
and  unity  of  the  Province  of  Venezuela  and  of  the  Vice  Kingdom 
of  New  Grenada,  as  the  Governors  of  that  Province  so  many 
times  made  manifest.  To  authorize  a  nation  to  make  conquests 
in  a  country's  own  territory  is  to  invite  that  it  be  done  by  a  future 
war  in  which  it  previously  declares  itself  conquered,  a  thing  so 
contrary  to  the  duties  of  a  nation  to  preserve  and  defend  itself, 
and  seek  its  own  prosperity,  that  it  finds  no  example  in  diplo- 
matic history. 

Among  the  documents  of  the  Washington  Commission  there 
is  found  a  report  of  Prof.  George  L.  Burr,  upon  the  meaning  of 
Article  V  and  VI  of  the  Treaty  6f  Munster,  and  which  concludes 
with  these  words: 

1.  "It  is  improbable  that,  in  the  intent  of  its  fraraers  and  its  ratifiers, 
the  Treaty  of  Munster  conceded  to  the  Dutch  a  right  to  win  from  the 
natives  lands  claimed  by  Spain. 

2,  It  does  not  appear  tliat  it  was  ever  interpreted  in  this  sense  by  either 
Spain  or  the  Dutch.*' 

From  the  reasoning  of  this  report  it  results  that  the  value  of 
the  grant  was  limited  to  the  conquests  which  in  the  future  the 


xxxviii 

Dutch  showM  make  in  Brazil;  and  this  precisely  because  Spain 
considered  it  hers  by  reason  of  the  discovery  and  occupation 
effected  there  by  Spaniards  and  Portuguese,  the  latter  then  being 
subjects  of  the  Spanish  Crown,  but  who,  being  then  in  rebellion, 
were  seeking  the  recovery  of  their  independence.  Spain,  in  order 
to  diminish  the  number  of  her  enemies,  decided  in  1648  to  agree 
to  the  independence  of  Holland,  and,  as  a  means  of  flattering  her, 
not  only  did  she  agree  to  the  restoration  of  the  conquests  made 
upon  Holland  by  the  Portuguese  in  Brazil,  but  also,  to  prejudice 
the  latter,  she  extended  her  favors  to  the  Dutch  to  the  point 
of  giving  them  the  privilege  of  making  conquests  there  likewise. 
Probably  Spain  feared  the  loss  of  Brazil,  as  she  did  lose  it,  in 
fact,  and  moreover,  part  of  the  same  Guiana  which  went  to 
form  the  so-called  Portuguese,  now  Brazilian,  Guiana.  That 
is,  that  following  the  example  of  the  Low  Countries,  Portugal 
also  happily  succeeded  in  her  purpose  to  free  herself  from  the 
Spanish  dominion.  Thus  was  Spain  vanquished  in  America  by 
the  Portuguese,  and  forced  to  divide  with  them  her  southern 
dominions,  as  was  realized  by  the  treaties  of  1750  and  1777.  For 
the  same  reason  the  clauses  of  the  Treaty  of  Munster  concerning 
the  restoration  of  the  conquests  which  had  passed  into  the  hands 
of  the  Portuguese  in  Brazil  availed  nothing  to  the  Dutch,  no  more 
than  the  recognition  of  the  future  conquests  which  might  take 
place  by  the  Dutch  in  the  same  territory.  They  preserved  noth- 
ing of  what  they  had  occupied  in  Brazil,  all  of  which  came  under 
the  Portuguese  power,  as'a  result  of  their  definitive  victories.  In 
South  America  Holland  retained  only  the  portion  of  Guiana  that 
the  Treaty  of  Munster  gave  her,  and  also  the  colony  of  Surinam 
obtfuned  from  Great  Britain  by  the  Treaty  of  Breda  in  exchange 
for  the  colony  which  they  had  acquired  under  the  name  of  New 
Netherlands  in  North  America,  and  which  came  to  be  in  the 
course  of  time  the  present  State  of  New  York  in  the  Federation  of 
the  United  States  of  America.  Only  tho  settlements  of  Deme- 
rara,  Pssequibo  and  Berbice  having  been  ceded  to  Great  Britain  in 


XXXI X 


1814,  Surinam  is  to-day  still  a  Dutch  possession,  bordering  on 
British  Guiana  and  on  BVench  and  Brazilian  Guiana.  The  bound- 
ary between  Surinam  and  British  Guiana  is  now  pending;  and 
that  of  the  latter  with  France  was  fixed  in  1891  by  the  Emperor 
of  Russia,  who  was  named  arbitrator  for  that  purpose. 

Before  entering  upon  other  points  it  seems  proper  to  take  note 
of  the  introduction  to  the  British  Counter-Case,  which  contains 
these  significant  observations: 

"  In  presenting  to  the  Arbitral  Tribunal  the  Counter-Case  on  behalf  of 
Great  Britain,  Her  Majesty's  Government  desire  to  call  attention  to  the 
fact  that  the  Venezuelan  Case  contains  a  number  of  references,  particularly 
in  the  notes,  to  the  Eeport  of  the  United  States'  Commission,  and  to  the 
Report  of  Professor  Burr  presented  to  that  Commission. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  statements  contained  in  those  Re- 
ports, and  the  inferences  founded  thereon  are  not  in  any  way  binding  upon 
the  Governments  of  Great  Britain  or  Venezuela,  and  must  be  tested  by  the 
evidence  by  which  they  are  supported. 

Moreover,  since  those  reports  were  prepared,  a  large  number  of  docu- 
ments bearing  on  the  case,  and  a  great  body  of  evidence  have  been  col- 
lected. These  documents  and  this  evidence  were  not  before  the  United 
States'  Commission. 

Her  Majesty's  Government  have  therefore  abstained  in  this  Counter- 
Case  from  discussing  the  passages  cited  from  the  Report  of  the  United 
States'  Commission  and  of  Professor  Burr,  and  have  confined  themselves  to 
commenting  upon  the  statements  made  in  the  Venezuelan  Case  and  the 
evidence  referred  to  in  that  Case  or  contained  in  the  Appendix  to  it." 

The  Commission  spoken  of  was  appointed  by  the  United  States 
to  study  the  question  of  the  divisional  line  between  Venezuela  and 
British  Guiana,  and  to  make  a  report  upon  the  same  to  the  Wash- 
ington Cabinet,  all  in  a  private  character  and  for  the  purpose 
of  furnishing  it  a  basis  upon  which  to  proceed.  It  is  well  known 
that  it  did  not  reach  the  end  of  its  labors,  because  the  cessation 
thereof  having  been  directed  before  they  were  concluded,  it  had 
to  prematurely  disband.  The  report  of  its  work,  which  it  pre- 
sented on  that  occasion,  set  forth,  as  it  was  bound  to  do,  what 
steps  it  had  taken  for  the  fulfillment  of  the  duty  for  the  perform- 


aiice  of  which  it  had  been  appointed.  One  of  its  acts  consisted  of 
the  sending  to  Europe  of  Professor  Burr,  for  the  purpose  of  study- 
ing the  Dutch  and  British  archives,  which  was  duly  carried  out, 
80  that  certain  copies  of  the  documents  examined,  350  in  num- 
ber, form  a  second  volume  of  the  nine  in  which  appear  together 
the  studies  carried  on  by  direction  of  the  Commission,  and  also 
the  papers  transmitted  to  it  by  the  Governments  of  Venezuela 
and  Great  Britain.  When  the  fact  of  the  organization  of  the  Com- 
mission was  communicated  to  the  latter  Government,  and  its 
desire  made  known  that  the  interested  parties  should  aid  it  by 
sending  it  all  documentary  evidence,  historical  narrations  and  un- 
published archives  which  might  be  found  in  its  possession,  it  replied 
in  a  note  of  February  10,  189C,  through  its  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs,  that  it  would  gladly  place  at  the  disposal  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  all  data  which  it  had  relating  to  the 
boundaries  with  Venezuela;  that  it  was  occupied  in  gathering 
documents  to  be  presented  to  Parliament,  and  that  it  would  take 
great  pleasure  in  sending  advance  copies  of  them. 

Subsequently  the  British  Government  submitted  to  the  Wash- 
ington Commission  information  referring  to  the  claims  of  Great 
Britain  as  to  the  Barima  boundary,  including  an  opinion  of  her 
Attorney-General  in  that  particular;  and  announced  that  it  would 
publish,  in  Blue  Book  No.  3,  documents  illustrating  said  matter; 
which  was  the  result  of  a  request  by  that  body. 

When  Professor  Burr  went  to  London  no  difficulties  were  put 
in  the  way  of  his  examination  of  the  portion  of  the  Dutch  ar- 
chives which  exist  there,  with  regard  to  the  colonies  of  Esse- 
quibo,  Demerara  and  Berbice,  which  were  ceded  to  the  British  in 
1«U. 

By  such  antecedents,  and  especially  by  the  sending  to  the 
Washington  Commission  of  Blue  Books  1,  2,  3,  4  and  5,  concern- 
ing the  controversy,  and  which  that  Commission  reproduced  as 
volumes  V  and  VI  of  its  pubHcations,  which  were  sent  to  the 
Governments  of  Venezuela  and  Great  Britain,  it  is  perceived  that 


xli 

both  were  pleased  to  comply  with  the  solicitation  that  they  lend 
their  aid  to  the  Commissioners  in  the  clearing  up  of  the  dispute. 
It  is  understood  that  the  work  of  the  Commission  will  now,  with 
the  same  object  in  view,  be  passed  on  to  the  five  arbitrators  who 
have  been  appointed. 

Their  study  will  be  facilitated  not  a  little  in  view  of  that 
already  undertaken  by  such  competent  persons  as  the  five  ap- 
pointed to  form  the  Commission,  who  were  among  the  most  illus- 
trious of  the  great  Republic,  namely:  Hon,  David  J.  Brewer; 
Hon.  R.  H.  Alvey;  Hon.  F.  R.  Coudert;  Hon.  Daniel  C.  Oilman, 
and  Hon.  Andrew  D.  White.  The  first  of  these,  who  presided 
over  it,  is  an  Associate  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  and  also  a  member  of  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration,  created 
to  decide  the  controversy,  was  appointed  by  the  choice  which  that 
Tiibunal  made  with  the  due  authorization  of  Venezuela,  and  in 
her  name. 

Its  Secretary  was  Mr.  Mallet-Prevost,  whose  ability,  judicial 
and  linguistic  knowledge,  assiduity  and  experience,  the  Com- 
mission made  the  subject  of  the  fullest  encomiums  in  its  general 
report.  He  also  contributed  to  the  work  in  the  shape  of  a  very 
meritorious  report  upon  the  cartographical  testimony  of  geog- 
raphers, succeeding  in  arranging  the  maps  in  classes  or  groups 
showing  the  historical  connection  between  them  and  pointing  out 
their  value  as  evidence. 

Dr.  Justin  Winsor,  Professor  Franklin  Jameson,  Professor 
George  L.  Burr,  Professor  J.  C.  Hanson  and  Dr.  de  Haan,  who 
participated  in  the  work  of  the  Commission,  belong,— the  first  to 
the  Library  of  Harvard  University,  with  the  reputation  of  being 
one  of  the  most  eminent  geographers  of  the  country;  the  second 
and  third  are  professors  of  history,  one  in  Brown  University  and 
the  other  in  Cornell;  the  fourth  is  cartographer  of  the  State  Uni- 
versity of  Wisconsin;  and  the  fifth  from  the  University  of  Johns 
Hopkins,  an  expert  in  the  Dutch  language  and  in  the  examina- 
tion of  archives.     A  great  number  of  private  citizens  acting  motu 


xlii 

proprio  furnished  the  Commission  with  books,  maps,  pamphlets 
and  documents  of  various  kinds,  which  seemed  to  them  capable  of 
contributing  to  the  desired  end;  and  the  public  offices  imme- 
diately opened  their  treasures  to  them,  among  others  the  Library 
of  Congress.  The  Commission  was  Hkewise  given  valuable  assist- 
ance by  the  U.  S.  Geological  Survey  and  the  Hydrographic 
Bureau,  whose  officers  readily  placed  at  its  disposal  all  the  ma- 
terials which  they  had  in  their  possession,  and  aided  them  by  their 
personal  assistance,  notably  Mr.  Marcus  Baker.  This  last  for  the 
period  of  several  months  devoted  himself  to  work  upon  maps  and 
charts  which  have  been  published  in  a  reproduction  of  the  most 
important  ones  of  the  last  three  centuries.  Not  satisfied  with 
this,  the  Commission  occupied  itself  with  profound  historical  in- 
vestigations, and  the  perusal  of  books  of  travel,  in  search  of  light 
upon  the  Spanish  and  Dutch  settlements  in  Guiana,  and  upon 
questions  of  occupation  and  territorial  dominion. 

The  Commission  also  reviewed  all  of  the  diplomatic  correspond- 
ence carried  on  between  officers  of  both  countries,  as  well  as  of 
the  Colonial  Governments  prepared  for  the  Home  Governments, 
with  narrations  of  events  and  reports  of  conferences.  Outside 
the  printed  diplomatic  correspondence,  the  Department  of  State 
gave  it  access  to  all  of  that  contained  in  its  bound  volumes,  from 
which  they  caused  to  be  copied  whatever  seemed  to  them  to  relate 
directly  or  indirectly  to  the  question  at  issue. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  Commission  had  to  examine  many 
treaties,  beginning  with  that  of  Munster  of  1648,  and  that  this 
brought  it  to  the  discussion  of  the  various  works  upon  interna- 
tional law  from  Vattel  down  to  the  present  day,  in  so  far  as  they 
related  to  the  matter  in  question;  and  the  discussion  of  the  same 
nature  between  the  United  States  and  Spain  as  to  the  boundaries 
of  Florida  (now  Louisiana  and  Texas);  and  between  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain  regarding  the  boundaries  between  their 
North  American  possessions  and  the  British  Colony. 

Wh(Mi  we  add  to  these  investigations  that  also  which  is  neces- 


xliii 

sary  to  make  one  familiar  with  the  numerous  documents,  maps 
and  papers  submitted  to  the  Commission  for  examination  by  Ven- 
ezeula  and  Great  Britain,  it  may  be  asked  whether  it  is  well  to 
put  to  one  side  the  work  of  a  Commission  of  gentlemen  to  whose 
wisdom,  and  to  the  great  number  of  materials  with  which  they 
had  to  work,  they  united  the  character  of  third  parties,  wholly 
disinterested  and  impartial,  and  bent  only  upon  giving  their  best 
services  to  the  cause  of  peace  and  harmony  between  two  nations, 
and  upon  meriting  the  confidence  placed  in  them  by  their  Govern- 
ment and  the  world. 

That  such  a  view  was  held  of  them  by  the  Governments  of 
Venezuela  and  Great  Britain  may  be  seen  from  these  words  taken 
from  its  report: 

"  We  take  pleasure  in  adding  that  during  the  entire  life  of  the  Commis- 
sion each  of  the  two  Governments  has  manifested  in  a  most  agreeable  and 
satisfactory  manner  its  desire  to  help  us  in  our  investigations.  Every  call 
made  upon  either  has  been  promptly  answered,  and  there  has  been  an  effort 
to  put  us  in  possession  of  all  the  facts  which  either  deemed  of  importance 
to  a  satisfactory  solution  of  the  question  in  dispute.'' 

It  does  not  seem  inopportune  to  call  to  mind  that  in  the  British 
Blue  Books  as  well  as  in  the  Case  and  Counter-Case  of  Great 
Britain,  there  are  adduced  many  Dutch  documents  in  support  of 
their  claims;  but  nevertheless  they  declare  in  their  Second  Volume 
that  they  will  not  discuss  the  reports  of  the  Washington  Commis- 
sion, several  of  which  are  based  upon  extracts  from  the  archives 
of  the  Hague,  examined  most  diligently  and  transcribed  with  a 
marvelous  industry. 

Returning  to  the  original  theme,  I  insist  upon  the  following 
reflection  already  made  elsewhere: 

"  The  following  feature  of  the  British  Case  attracts  still  more  attention. 
Its  principal  argument,  if  not  the  only  one,  consists  in  ignoring  the  force 
of  the  rights  of  Spain  as  the  discoverer  and  first  occupant  of  America  in 
general,  and  in  particular  of  the  region  of  Guayana,  upon  which  is  based 
the  question  at  issue,  in  order  to  attribute  validity  solely  to  Dutch  and  British 
occupation.    Nevertheless,  the  documents  presented,  taken  from  the  archives 


of  Spain,  tend  only  to  prove  that  the  Spanish  authorities  knew  and  tol- 
erated, or  at  least  did  not  succeed  in  preventing,  foreign  occupations. 

*•  Thus  Great  Britain  destroys,  by  such  a  course  of  argument,  the 
foundations  upon  which  she  has  built  her  claims.  Because,  in  truth,  if 
the  territory  of  Guayana,  taken  by  the  Dutch,  was  justly  open  to  occupa- 
tion, it  is  useless  to  seek  from  Spanish  authority  confirmation  of  the  right  to 
such  acquisitions;  still  less,  if  it  is  true,  as  it  is  affirmed  with  admirable 
assurance  on  page  36  of  the  Preliminary  Statement,  *  that  the  more  accu- 
rate statement  of  events  is  that  attacks  and  encroachments  by  Spain  on  the 
Dutch  possessions  were  repelled  by  the  Dutch  and  British.'" 

Ill  another  place,  following  the  same  reasoning,  it  is  said: 

"  If  at  the  date  of  the  treaty,  Spain  had  only  one  settlement  in  Guay- 
ana, namely,  St.  Thome,  and  therefore  the  Dutch,  or  any  others  were  at 
liberty  to  occupy  and  take  possession  of  all  the  rest  of  the  territory,  what 
necessity  was  there  for  Spain  io  confirm  the  Dutch  in  all  their  possessions 
wiiich  they  had  at  that  time  acquired  therein,  as  if  she  had  formerly  had 
any  riglits  over  them,  and  as  though  such  occupations  were  not  legitimate 
without  her  confirmation,  an  act  which  would  signify  on  the  part  of  Spain 
a  cession  of  her  property  in  favor  of  the  new  owners  ?  And  what  value 
could  l)e  attjiched  to  the  license  which  the  treaty  is  claimed  to  have  given 
the  Dutch,  in  order  to  make  fresh  acquisitions  wherever  the  Spaniards  were 
not  already  established?  How  can  a  nation  give  away  what  is  not  its  own, 
and  what  is  accessible  to  occupation  by  every  one  without  power  on  its  part 
to  prevent  it? 

"  On  the  contrary,  upon  examination  of  the  Treaty  of  Munster,  by 
which  was  terminated  the  long  war  of  more  than  seventy  years  between 
Spain  and  the  Netherlands,  which  were  in  revolt  against  her,  and  by  which 
the«e  were  recognized  as  a  sovereign  and  independent  power,  every  impartial 
reader  will  find  what  is  found  in  all  treaties  of  peace,  namely,  a  final  settle- 
ment of  the  conquests  made  by  the  belligerents  during  the  time  of  hostili- 
ties. In  other  words,  in  that  treaty  the  Dutch  acknowledged  that  they  had 
no  perfect  title  to  the  possessions  which  they  had  acquired  in  Guayana  dur- 
ing the  war,  and  asked  Spain  to  validate,  by  treaty  and  cession,  their  right 
to  these  acquisitions." 

In  support  of  this  it  was  thought  well  to  cite  the  opinion  of 
Phillimore,  Sec.  CCCCVI,  vol.  8: 

"  With  resjmt  to  immovable  property  captured  in  war,  the  estab- 
lished doctrine   of    International   Law  may  now   be    said  to  be  that  the 


xlv 

acquisition  of  it  is  not  liolden  to  he  completed  before  either  the 
territory  in  which  it  is  situated  has  by  submission  and  consequent 
extinction  of  its  international  personality,  become  incorporated  in  the 
possessions  of  the  conqueror;  or  what  is  a  much  safer  title  to  property  so 
acquired,  before  a  Treaty  of  Peace  has  recognized  and  ratified  the  possession 
of  the  conqueror." 

Sec.  526  :  "  It  is  noiu  pretty  generally  acknowledged  that  there  is  hoth 
absurdity  and  iniquity  in  classing  territory  obtained  by  conquest  under 
the  category  of  res  nullius,  and  in  applying  with  unreasoning  piedantry 
or  sophistical  injustice,  not  the  spirit,  but  the  letter,  of  the  Roman  law,  to  a 
subject-matter  lohich,  like  that  of  conquest,  has  necessarily  undergone,  in 
all  its  bearings,  a  most  important  change  since  the  time  of  Justinian" 

"  The  shameless  pretext  of  Frederick  the  Second  for  the  invasion  of 
Saxony,  in  1756,  Avill  not  be  alleged  again  by  the  most  reckless  despiser 
of  International  Justice." 

"  Various  and  many  Treaties  of  Peace  fortify  the  sound  international 
doctrine  that  conquest  and  occtqjation  of  territory  are  distinct  public  acts, 
carrying  with  them  very  different  consequences  both  to  the  State  and  to 
the  individual.  The  language  of  treaties  which  concern  the  acquisition  of 
conquered  territory  is  that  the  subdued  State  yields  or  concedes  a  certain 
territory  to  another ;  not  that  the  con((uering  State  retains  or  keeps  pos- 
session of  what  it  has  seized,  which  would  be  the  proper  expression  in  the 
treaty  with  respect  to  a  State  obtaining  the  recognition  of  an  occupied 
territory." 

"  '  It  is  unquestionable,'  says  Monsieur  de  Rayueval,  '  that  the  word 
"  cede  "  (ceder)  necessarily  implies  ownership,  consequently  it  is  neither  de- 
stroyed by  war  nor  by  conquest.  Thus  the  principle  taught  by  the  Roman 
law,  and  the  majority  of  publicists,  is  belied  in  practice.'  " 

From  this  it  has  been  deduced  that  it  is  not  true,  as  stated  in 
Blue  Book  No.  1,  in  several  places,  and  especially  on  page  25,  that 
Great  Britain  "extended  her  settlements  and  continually  exer- 
cised over  the  territory  originally  claimed  by  the  Dutch  all  those 
rights  by  which  nations  usually  indicate  their  claim  to  territorial 
possession." 

In  the  Counter  Case  of  Venezuela  it  is  shown  beyond  a  doubt 
that  the  Treaty  of  Munster  ceded  to  the  Dutch  that  which  they 
possessed  in  1643,  not  any  subsequent  extension  at  the  cost  of 


xlvi 

Spain;  that,  on  the  contrary,  it  was  there  stipulated  that  the 
Dutch  should  respect  the  Spanish  possessions,  and  should  not 
acquire  more  Spanish  territory;  and  that  if  the  said  extensions  be 
at  the  west  of  the  Essequibo,  precisely  the  region  in  question, 
they  prove  a  violation  of  treaty  obligations. 

This  is  a  capital  point.  It  was  thought  to  be  decided  by  Article 
III  of  the  Treaty  of  Arbitration,  which  reads: 

<' The  Tribunal  shall  investigate  and  ascertain  the  extent  of  the  terri- 
tories belonging  to,  or  that  might  lawfully  be  claimed  by  the  United 
Netherlands  or  by  the  kingdom  of  Spain  respectively  at  the  time  of  the 
HC(|ui8ition  by  Great  Britain  of  the  Colony  of  British  Guiana,  and  shall 
determine  the  boundary  line  between  the  Colony  of  British  Guiana  and  the 
United  States  of  Venezuela." 

But  the  British  Counter  Case  asserts  that  the  Dutch,  at  the 
date  of  the  Treaty  of  Munster,  were  unquestionably  in  possession 
of  the  great  part  of  the  coast,  from  the  Orinoco  to  the  Amazon; 
that  they  controlled  all  the  rivers  which  run  into  the  Atlantic, 
except  the  Orinoco,  and  had  established  settlements  at  various 
points;  that  those  of  the  Essequibo  and  Pomeroon  were  not  am 
infmction  of  the  Treaty  of  Munster,  but  were  expressly  in  accord 
with  the  rights  reserved  to  the  Dutch  by  Article  V  thereof;  that 
British  occupations  of  the  territory  situated  between  the  Essequibo 
and  the  Pojneroon,  which  always  extended  and  now  extend  far; 
beyond  that  territory,  were  founded  as  of  right  in  succession  to 
the  Dutch  by  virtue  of  the  right  which  they  and  Great  Britain 
independently  had  to  colonize  and  settle. 

In  a  paper  prepared  here  in  1897  several  pages  were  devoted 
to  the  explanation  of  the  inteipretation  which  Venezuela  gave  to 
Articles  III  and  IV  of  the  Treaty  of  Arbitration.  Upon  examin- 
ing them,  it  was  seen  that  the  first  does  not  authorize  the 
Arbitrates  to  give  to  the  British  any  rights  other  than  those  be- 
longing to  the  Dutch  at  the  time  of  the  cession  in  1814;  neither 
may  they  take  into  consideration  what  England  may  have 
done  from  1790  to  1802,  nor  from  1803  to  1814,  because  they  must 


xlvii 

limit  themselves,  according  to  the  treaty,  to  an  investigation  of 
the  state  in  which  things  were  found  between  the  Spaniards  and 
the  Dutch  in  1814;  neither,  for  the  same  reason,  may  they 
consider  the  acquisitions  which  Great  Britain  pretends  to  have 
gained  on  this  side  of  the  Pomeroon,  the  limit  of  the  area  under 
Dutch  cultivation  in  1814;  nor  likewise  the  usurpations  committed 
after  1850,  being  opposed  to  the  agreement  entered  into  between 
Venezuela  and  Great  Britain  neither  to  occupy  nor  usurp  any  part 
of  the  territory  in  dispute,  and  effected  in  spite  of  vigorous  and  re- 
peated protests  on  the  part  of  the  Republic  and  in  the  abuse  of 
force;  and  furthermore,  that  they  nmst  not  give  them  the  benefit 
of  the  lapse  of  fifty  years  set  forth  in  the  treaty  as  the  term  of 
prescription,  etc. 

If  this  were  not  so,  the  mention  made  in  Article  III  of  the 
necessity  of  inquiring  into  and  ascertaining  the  extent  of  the  ter- 
ritories belonging  to  Spain  and  the  Netherlands  in  1814,  the  date  of 
the  cession  of  the  latter's  colonies  in  Guiana  to  the  Enghsh, 
would  be  without  any  value  or  effect  as  a  means  of  arriving  at  a 
knowledge  of  the  boundary  between  these  territories  at  that 
time,  and  thereby  determine  the  dividing  line  between  Venezuela 
and  Great  Britain. 

True  it  is,  that  to  the  phrase  ''territoiies  belonging  to  the 
United  Netherlands  or  .  .  .  the  Kingdom  of  Spain  respect- 
ively," are  added  these  words,  "or  that  might  be  lawfully 
claimed,"  by  one  or  the  other,  "at  the  time  of  the  acquisition 
by  Great  Britain  of  the  colony  of  British  Guiana";  but  upon 
analyzing  the  significance  of  such  addition,  it  has  been  made 
clear  what  they  were;  not  the  territories  which  the  Dutch  might 
legitimately  claim,  because  it  has  been  proven  beyond  a  doubt 
that  they  did  not  pass  the  Essequibo  on  the  coast,  but  the  others 
which  they  were  bold  enough  to  claim  without  documentary 
proof. 

It  is  necessary,  then,  to  submit  said  Article  III  to  the  crucial 
test  of  a  right  interpretation  in  order  that,  in  harmony  with  the 


xlvui 

rest  of  the  Treaty,  it  may  be  seen  that  its  true  sense  is  to  carry 
back  things  to  the  state  in  which  they  were  in  1814. 

To  the  same  effect  is  Article  IV  of  the  Treaty,  which  constitutes 
its  essence.    It  is  as  follows: 

"In  deciding  the  matters  submitted,  the  Arbitrators  shall  ascertain  all 
facts  which  they  deem  necessary  to  a  decision  of  the  controversy,  and  shall 
be  governed  by  the  following  Eules,  which  are  agreed  upon  by  the  High 
Contracting  Parties  as  Rules  to  be  taken  as  applicable  to  the  case,  and  by 
such  principles  of  international  law  not  inconsistent  therewith  as  the 
Arbitrators  shall  determine  to  be  applicable  to  the  case : 

Rules, 
{(i.)  Adverse  holding  or  prescription  during  a  period  of  fifty  years  shall 
make  a  good  title.     The  Arbitrators  may  deem  exclusive  political  control  of 
u  district,  as  well  as  actual  settlement  thereof,  sufficient  to  constitute  ad- 
verse holding  or  to  make  title  by  prescription." 

In  the  Venezuelan  Case  it  is  stated: 

"  Venezuela  has  accepted  this  rule,  but  she  submits  and  will  claim  that 
^  lime  is  but  one  of  many  elements  essential  to  create  title  by  prescription. 
Prescription  to  be  effective  against  nations,  as  against  individuals,  must  be 
honujidv,  public,  notorious,  adverse,  exclusive,  peaceful,  continuous,  un- 
contested, and  maintained  under  a  claim  of  right.  Kulc  («)  fixes  fifty  years 
as  tlie  jMiriod  of  prescription,  but  leaves  its  other  elements  unimpaired  "  (V. 
C,  p.  22!)). 

Upon  such  an  observation  the  British  Counter  Case  comments 
as  foUows: 

"The  proposition  herein  enunciated  is  not  accurately  stated.  Time 
and  possession  are,  broadly  si)eaking,  the  only  essential  elements  of  pre- 
scription."   (B.  C.-C,  p.  137.) 

In  the  Counter  Case  of  Venezuela  this  point  has  not  been 
taken  up,  doubtless  in  the  thought  that  Great  Britain  would  not 
controvert  it;  but  as  she  has  now  impugned  it,  though  only  by 
a  mere  denial,  it  is  necessary  to  expound  the  proposition  of  our 
Case. 

I  attributed  much  importance  to  the  said  rule  (c),  considering 
that  it  simplified  the  question,  and   was  equivalent  to   a  recog- 


xlix 

nition  of  the  rights  of  Spain  to  the  whole  territory  of  Guiana; 
but  in  the  attempt  to  destroy  them  by  the  employment  of 
acquisitive  prescription,  the  latter  is  called  in  the  treaty 
"exclusive  political  control,  and  effective  colonization"  of 
a  district.  I  therefore  devoted  myself  to  searching  through 
the  books  that  were  accessible  to  me  in  Caracas,  for 
the  doctrines  of  science  in  that  particular.  I  did  not 
find  a  complete  exposition  of  the  matter,  either  in  the  books 
which  were  the  most  comprehensive  up  to  that  time,  viz.:  Calvo's 
"  Theoretical  and  Practical  International  Law,"  in  five  volumes, 
to  which  the  sixth  was  added  in  1896;  and  the  German  Manual  of 
International  Law,  with  the  cooperation  of  twelve  publicists, 
almost  all  professors  of  science,  published  in  Hamburg  in  1887,  by 
Dr.  Franz  von  Hoftzendorff,  also  professor  of  law;  and  the  most 
recent  "  Treatise  on  the  Public  International  Law  of  Europe 
and  America  according  to  the  progress  of  Science  and  the  Prac- 
tice of  Modern  Times,"  of  which  there  have  arrived  here,  up  to 
to-day,  seven  volumes,  there  being  lacking  only  the  eighth  and 
last. 

I  saw  that  in  Ortolan  (Eugene)  alone,  there  was  treated  at  large, 
in  all  its  phases,  the  point  that  appeared  in  the  treatise  published  in 
1851  in  Paris,  "On  the  means  of  acquiring  International  Domain, 
or  the  property  of  a  State  among  Nations,  according  to  the  Public 
Law  of  Nations,  compared  with  the  means  of  acquiring  property 
among  private  persons  according  to  municipal  law;  and  followed 
by  an  exanjination  of  the  principles  of  political  equilibrium."  I 
also  found  in  a  French  periodical,  "General  Review  of  Public 
International  Law,"  of  Professors  Antoine  Pillet  and  Paul  Fan- 
chille.  No.  3,  of  May  and  June,  1896,  an  article  entitled  "On 
Acquisitive  Prescription  in  Public  International  Law,"  a  paper 
which  explains  its  object  and  the  conditions  necessary  to  its  exist- 
ence, by  Eugene  Audinet,  Professor  of  International  Law  of  the 
Law  Faculty  of  Aix. 

I  gathered  the   principal  ideas   which  these  texts  contain  to 


1 

establish  the  same  principles  as  are  invoked  in  the  Case  of  Vene- 
zuela, not  without  making  use,  also,  of  the  teaching  of  Grotiua, 
Barberac,  De  Filice,  Martens  (Henri),  Ruthei-ford,  KlUber,  Ahrens, 
Heffter,  Woolsey,  Martens  (F.  de,),  the  fifth  Arbitrator,  Riband, 
Wild,  Travers  Twiss,  Vattel,  Phillimore,  Calvo,  Pradier  Fodere, 
Fiore,  Riquelane,  Bello,  Madiedo,  Torres  Campos,  Ortolan  (Eugene), 
and  Audinet. 

There  were  also  utilized  to  the  same  end,  the  statutes  of  several 
countries,  as  explained  by  their  jurists  and  commentators,  Marcade, 
Troplong,  Baudry,  Lacatinere,  Lariche,  Bonjean,  Bentham,  Covar- 
rubias  y  Molina,  Escriche,  Tapia,  Stephen,  Wharton,  Giles  Jacob, 
and  T.  E.  Tomhn. 

In  fine,  another  chapter  was  dedicated  to  the  task  of  demon- 
strating that  prescription  is  not  applicable  to  the  present  case,  be- 
cause it  does  not  fulfill  the  requisites  which  are  deemed  indispen- 
sible  in  law  to  make  it  valid. 

Caracas,  October  4,  1898. 

(Signed)    Rafajil  Seijas. 


NOTES  ON  MARMION^S  REPORT  OF  JULY  JO,  J788 
AND  ON  MAPS  SUBMITTED  BY 
GREAT  BRITAIN. 

[Translation.] 

I.    MARMION^  REPORT. 

In  the  Appendix  of  the  British  Case,  Volume  V,  page  52,  there 
was  published  a  '*  topographical  and  general  description  of  the 
Province  of  Guiana  and  of  its  mighty  river  the  Orinoco,  in  which 
an  account  is  given  of  its  settlement,  arable  lands,  products  and 
commerce,  and  certain  measures  are  proposed  which  are  regarded 
as  conducive  to  its  development  and  increase,   its  preservation, 


I 


li 

and  better  condition  of  defence,"  being  a  report  written  by  the 
Governor  of  Guiana,  Don  Miguel  Marmion,  on  July  10,  1T88. 
The  second  paragraph  is  as  follows: 

"The  portion  of  this  country  (Guiana)  belonging  to  Spain  is  bounded 
on  the  east  by  the  Dutch  Colonies  of  Essequibo,  Demerari,  Berbis,  and 
Surinam,  and  by  the  French  Colony  of  Cayenne;  on  the  south  by  the  Portu- 
guese Colonies  of  the  Amazons  and  Kio  Negro;  and  on  the  west  and  north 
by  the  Upper  and  Lower  Orinoco,  which  separates  it  from  the  Kingdom  of 
Santa  F^  and  from  the  Provinces  of  Barinas,  Caracas,  and  Cumand.  (It 
[Spanish  Guiana]  may  be  regarded  as  divided  into  three  districts:  that 
of  the  Lower  Orinoco,  which  includes  from  Point  Barima,  on  the  great 
Boca  de  Navios,  up  to  the  Kapid  of  Aturcs,  a  space  of  more  than  180 
leagues  from  east  to  west,  wherein  lies  the  capital  of  Guayana  Santo  Thom^, 
the  reductions  of  the  Catalonian  Capuchin  Fathers,  part  of  the  Missions  of 
the  Observantines,  and  tlie  best  arable  lands  and  chief,  though  very  scanty, 
settlements  and  products  of  the  province;  that  of  Parime,  on  the  south,  in 
which  are  the  so-called  city  of  Guiroir  and  tiie  Lake  of  Parime,'or  El  Dorado, 
formerly  so  celebrated,*  a  country  of  great  extent  not  well  explored,  and 
which  the  Rivers  Parime,  Mao,  Curaricara,  and  Paragua  water  to  no  pur- 
pose; and,  lastly,  that  of  the  Upper  Orinoco,  from  the  mouth  of  the 
Kiver  Meta,  not  far  distant  from  the  Rapid  of  Atures,  up  to  San  Carlos,  at 
the  junction  of  the  Rio  Negro  and  Casiquiare,  and  following  the  stream  of 
the  latter  until  it  discharges  itself  again  into  the  Orinoco  near  the  Villa  of 
Esmeralda.)  A  great  part  of  this  extensive  province  [Spanish  Guiana]  is 
occupied,  especially  towards  the  centre,  by  divers  nations  of  barbaric  In- 
dians, who  are  but  little  known  and  very  difficult  to  reduce,  owing  to  their 
wandering  life,  to  their  sheltering  themselves  in  the  thickets  of  their  woods 
and  forests,  and  to  their  attachment  to,  and  extreme  love  of,  independence, 
which  they  i)refer  to  all  the  greater  advantages  of  civilized  and  rational 
life."     [B.  C.  V.  p.  52.] 

On  comparison  of  this  passage  with  the  corresponding  one  in 
the  authenticated  copies,  which  Venezuela  has  three  times  ob- 
tained from  the  archives  in  Spain,  it  is  seen  that  in  the  same  title 
of  Marmion's  report  there  is  a  differencu  of  texts.  That  in  the 
British  Case  lack  certain  words  which  are  published  in  the  Case 

*  Lake  of  Parime  between  the  third  and  fourth  degrees  of  north  latitude,  on  the  shores  of 
which  the  discoverers  of  the  16th  century  used  to  place  the  imaginary  great  city  of  Manoa  or 
El  Dorado. 


lii 

of  Venezuela,  viz:  "rivers  bathing  it  and  affording  its  commu- 
nications;" the  word  "adaptable"  before  the  words  "arable 
lands;"  likewise  the  words  "its  dense  forests."  In  place  of  the 
words  "  which  are  regarded  as  conducive  to  its  development  and 
increase,  its  preservation  and  better  condition  of  defense,"  our 
Case  reads  "some  means  best  adapted  and  conducive  to  their  in- 
vestigations and  advancement." 

But  that  is  not  the  most  important  difference.  The  principal 
one  consists  in  there  being  inserted  in  the  second  paragraph  al- 
ready copied,  the  words  put  between  parentheses,  which  read:  "  (It 
[Spanish  Guiana]  may  be  regarded  as  divided  into  three  districts: 
that  of  the  Jjywer  Orinoco,  which  includes  from  Point  Barima, 
on  the  great  Boca  de  Navios,^^  etc.,  up  to  and  including  the  words 
"  until  it  discharges  itself  again  into  the  Orinoco  near  the  Villa 
of  Esmeralda.") 

The  same  thing  was  done  in  two  places  in  Blue  Book  No.  3, 
pages  20  and  316,  the  first  time  the  words  being  put  in  italics, 
from  the  beginning  of  the  insertion,  up  to  and  including  the 
words  "part  of  the  Missions  of  the  Observantines." 

It  seems  that  the  object  was  to  prove  that  in  the  mind  of  Gov- 
ernor Marmion  the  Spanish  Province  of  Guiana  commenced  at 
Foint  Barima;  which  was  wholly  incorrect,  because  the  same 
paragraph  begins  by  saying:  "  The  portion  of  this  country 
[Guiana]  belonging  to  Spain  is  bounded  on  the  east  by  the  Dutch 
Colonies  of  Essequibo,  Demerari,  Berbis,  and  Surinam,  and  by 
the  French  Colony  of  Cayenne.'^ 

Certainly  he  would  have  said  this  if  the  Spanish  possessions 
did  not  reach  beyond  Barima.  On  the  other  hand,  there  are  re- 
corded acts  of  Marmion  showing  that  he  exercised  jurisdiction 
over  Barima,  Waini  and  other  points;  for  example,  the  commis- 
sion given  on  June  20,  1785,  to  Mateo  Beltran,  Master  of  the 
Orinoco  Coast  Guardship,  that  he  should  enter  Barima  Creek  and 
intercept  two  foreign  ships  which  were  there  cutting  timber.  That 
commissioner  was  in  the  Amacuro,  the  mouth  of  the  Barima,  in 


liii 
the  Mora,  in  the  Waini,  in  the  Arature,  etc.  In  the  same  report 
above  referred  to,  Marmion  says  that  "The  Essequibo  falls  into 
the  sea  48  leagues  to  the  windward  of  the  Boca  de  Navios  of  the 
Orinoco,"  just  as  was  written  by  Governor  Centurion  when  he 
said  (Blue  Book  No.  1,  p.  124  and  125)  in  his  report  of  November 
11, 1YY3,  that: 

"  Ou  the  confines  or  limits  of  the^ast  region  of  this  province  the  French 
and  Dutch  have  occupied  the  whole  sea-coast  with  their  Colonies— the 
French  in  Cayenne,  round  the  mouth  of  the  Amazon,  and  the  Dutcl  in 
Surinam,  Berbiz  and  Esguibo,  55  or  60  leagues  from  the  great  mouth  of  the 
Orinoco. " 

The  Dutch  being  at  this  distance  from  the  great  mouth  of  the 
Orinoco,  the  boundary  between  the  Spanish  Province  of  Guiana 
and  the  Dutch  Colonies  could  not  begin  there. 

The  other  point  which  appears  in  the  documents  cited  is  the 
mistake  made  in  copying  the  following  paragraph  on  page  63  of 
the  Appendix  of  the  British  Case,  Volume  V: 

"This  first  settlement  having  been  formed  with  the  views  stated,  and  with 
the  object  which  shall  be  given  more  fully  when  treating  of  the  defence,  the 
colonization  shall  be  continued  in  the  interior  of  that  peninsula  with  three, 
four,  or  more  villages,  and  lastly  with  a  villa  of  Spaniards  on  the  banks  of 
the  Cuyuni  nearly  at  its  point  of  union  with  the  Supamo,  which  will  be 
most  conducive  in  the  said  spot  to  the  furtherance  of  the  progress  of  the 
settlement,  and  to  the  protection  of  this  approach  to  the  Missions,  atid  the 
prevention,  as  already  mentioned,  of  the  escape  of  the  Indians  and  their 
communication  with  the  Dutch  of  Essequibo,  and  the  penetration  of  the  Ittaer 
into  their  districts,  and  the  prejudicial  traffic  in poitos." 

At  the  foot  there  is  a  note  referring  to  the  expression,  "a 
villa,"  as  follows: 

"  From  an  extra-judicial  report  it  is  known  that  a  beginning  has  been 
made  of  the  foundation  of  the  new  town  nearly  at  the  point  of  union  of 
the  Cuyuni  with  the  Orinoco  (sic)." 

It  is  manifest  that  this  is  completely  absurd,  because  the  Cuy- 
uni does  not  anywhere  run  into  the  Orinoco,  although  one  can 
communicate  therewith  by  means  of  other  rivers  and  streams. 


liv 

But  by  the  photograph  which  has  been  procured  and  duly  cer- 
tified from  a  page  of  the  original  report  existing  in  the  General 
Archives  of  Siinancas,  Department  of  War,  bundle  7,241,  the  error 
is  clearly  shown.     [See  V.  C.  C.  Vol.  3,  p.  146.] 

What  the  note  really  says  is  this: 

"  From  an  extra-jndicial  report  it  is  shown  that  a  beginning  has  been 
made  ol  the  foundation  of  the  new  town  nearly  at  the  point  of  union  of 
the  Cuyuni  with  the  Curumo."      [V.  0.  Vol.  3,  p.  400.] 

The  said  interpolation  and  this  substitution  of  Orinoco  for 
Curumo  raises  a  presumption  that  in  the  copies  of  other  docu- 
ments, Spanish  as  well  as  Dutch,  similar  errors  may  have  been 
made. 

The  Counter-Case  of  Venezuela  makes  certain  conclusive 
observations  with  regard  to  the  last  error,  which  is  persistently 
committed,  because  it  first  appeared  in  the  British  Blue  Book  No. 
3,  page  322;  and  the  note  is  adduced  as  a  new  proof  of  the  exist- 
ence of  the  foi-t  on  the  Curumo,  which  at  least  had  a  beginning  in 
1793,  but  which  is  denied  in  British  Blue  Book  No.  V,  in  spite  of 
the  assertion  of  Schomburgk  to  the  contrary.  The  latter  in  his 
memorandum  upon  the  boundaries  of  Guiana  addressed  to  Lord 
Stanley,  Colonial  Secretary,  on  December  26,  1844,  says: 

**  I  expect  likewise  that  the  Venezuelan  Government  will  oppose  the 
right  bank  of  the  River  Cuyuni  being  taken  as  a  boundary  line  from  where 
that  river  receives  the  Acarabisi  to  its  source,  and  from  thence  to  Mount 
Rorainia,  in  consequence  of  the  Spaniards  having  had  a  fortified  post,  called 
Cadiva,  opposite  the  mouth  of  the  River  Cnrumu."     [B.  B.  No.  V,  p.  51. J 

This  assertion  is  rebutted  in  a  note  saying: 

"This  was  a  mistake.  Subsequent  investigations  have  shown  that  no 
such  post  was  ever  establislied  by  the  Spaniards.  See  'Venezuela  No.  3 
(1896),  pp.  25-6." 

The  passage  cited  is  as  follows: 

"  In  the  present  condition  of  things,  and  with  those  Colonies  again  in 
the  hands  of  their  ancient  possessors  (the  Dutch),  the  danger  is  fortunately 
diminished,  but  not  to  such  a  degree  as  to  render  it  unnecessary  to  proviii. 


Iv 

for  the  security  of  that  frontier  (the  importance  of  which  is  already  better 
recognized)  as  well  and  speedily  as  possible. 

"  And  for  this  purpose  it  is,  in  my  opinion,  indispensable  that,  as  pro- 
posed, a  fortress,  with  a  mixed  village  of  Spaniards  and  native  Indians, 
fhould  be  constructed  on  (he  banks  of  the  Cuyimi;  that  the  escort  of  from 
twenty-five  to  thirty  men  lohich,  by  Royal  Order,  have  been  granted  to  those 
Missions,  and  lohich  can  be  formed  of  the  settlers  themselves,  should  be 
united  therewith,  and  that  every  effort  should  be  made  to  encourage  and  in- 
crease (his  establishment  by  inducing  the  people,  through  concessions  of  lands 
and  certain  other  favours,  to  settle  in  those  parts;  where  as  in  the  other  ap- 
proaches aud  chief  entrances  to  the  Orinoco  (as  already  stated  in  another 
place),  the  measure  of  its  strength  and  true  resistance  will  be  in  proportion 
to  the  greater  or  less  extent  of  its  population."     [B.  B.  No.  II,  pp.  25-26.] 

After  this  citation  it  is  confideutly  affirmed  in  Blue  Book  No.  3 
that: 

"  The  proposed  post  was,  however,  never  erected,  nor  was  there  ever 
any  Spanish  guard  placed  there." 

But  what  can  rationally  be  deduced  from  the  words  of  Mar- 
mion  is  that,  at  the  date  of  this  report,  July  10,  1788,  the  fort  on 
the  Curumo  had  not  yet  been  constructed.  It  was  to  have  been 
commenced  in  that  year;  and  that  in  that  year  a  Spanish  guard 
was  placed  there,  appears  incontestable  from  the  documents  pub- 
lished in  Volume  II  of  the  Appendix  to  the  Case  of  Venezuela, 
namely,  certain  communications  from  the  Governor  of  Guiana, 
Luis  Antonio  Gil,  in  1792,  who  speaks  of  the  existence  of  the  sen- 
try box,  or  strong-house  of  the  Cuyun.i  and  the  means  adopted 
for  its  defense. 

In  1793,  Sefior  Miguel  Marmion,  substituted  as  he  had  been  by 
Luis  Antonio  Gil,  was  in  Caracas,  from  whence  he  says  that  he 
sent  a  copy  of  his  report  of  1788,  made  up  from  the  rough  notes 
and  loose  memoranda  which  happened  to  remain  in  his  possession. 


Ivi 

IL  MAPS  SUBMITTED  BY  GREAT  BRITAIN. 

In  Volume  VII  of  the  Appendix  to  the  British  Case,  page  358, 
is  cited  the  following: 

"  General  Plan  of  the  Province  of  Guiana,  as  accurate  as  possible  and 
with  respect  to  its  wide  circumference  and  unknown  centre  prepared  with 
the  information  acquired  up  to  December  31,  1870,  by  the  Commandant 
General  thereof,  Don  Manuel  Centurion." 

With  regard  to  this  map,  there  is  to  be  found  on  page  359  the 
following  statement: 

"On  this  Map, drawn  to  illustrate  Centurion's  reports  and  recommenda- 
tions, ihe  boundary  is  draion  in  accordance  with  the  extreme  Spanish  vieiv, 
viz.,  from  the  right  bank  of  the  Moruka,  past  the  source  of  the  Povaron 
(Pomeroon),  crossing  the  Essequibo  a  few  miles  above  its  junction  with  the 
Massaruni,  and  then  turning  almost  due  east,  so  as  to  confine  the  Dutch 
Colonies  to  a  strip  of  coast  and  cut  off  the  whole  Hinterland. 

"  The  Mission  Stations  are  marked,  but  not  named,  and  are  shown  as 
lying  between  the  head-waters  of  the  Yuruari,  the  course  of  the  Imataka, 
and  the  source  of  the  Caroni  River.  St.  Thome  is  at  Angostura,  and 
there  is  no  mark  of  Spanish  occupation  east  of  the  Orinoco,  save  the 
Missions." 

The  most  notable  thing  in  this  commentary  is  that  it  says 
that  ''the  boundary  is  drawn  in  accordance  with  the  extreme 
Spanish  view."  According  to  this,  Spain  could  never  have  made 
clain)  to  beyond  the  Moroco. 

It  will  not  be  inopportune  to  remember  what  has  been  said 
by  some  authors  with  regard  to  maps.     For  example,  Twiss  said: 

"  Maps,  however,  are  but  pictorial  representations  of  supposed  terri- 
torial limits,  the  evidence  of  which  must  he  sought  for  elsewhere"  [Oregon 
Question,  p.  1*.>8.] 

*♦  Maps,  us  such,  that  is,  when  they  have  not  had  a  special  character 
attached  to  them  by  treaties,  merely  represent  the  opinions  of  the  geog- 
raphers who  Imvo  constructed  them,  which  opinions  are  frequently  founded 
on  fictions  or  erroneous  statements."     [Idem.  p.  306.] 

That  Governor  Centurion  did  not  deem  the  boundaries  marked 
on  Ills  map  to  be  the  true  boundaries  of  Guiana,  he  himself  de- 


Ivii 
dared  in  so  many  words  in  reports  transmitted  to  his  Govern- 
ment, some  of  which  are  reproduced  in  the  Appendix  to  the 
British  Case.  Here  is  the  proof.  On  Page  111  (of  British  Case, 
Appendix  IV)  in  the  report  of  the  Commandant  of  Guiana  to  the 
King,  dated  November  11,  1773,  three  years  after  the  sending  of 
the  said  map,  we  find  these  words: 

"In  punctual  and  complete  obedience  to  your  Highness' commands  I 
liave  to  report  as  follows : — 

"This  province  of  Guaiima  is  the  most  easterly  part  of  the  King's 
dominions  in  South  America  on  the  north  coast,  and  its  boundaries  are : 
On  the  north,  tlie  Lower  Orinoco,  the  southern  boundary  of  the  Provinces 
of  Cumand  and  Caracas;  on  the  east,  the  Atlantic  Ocean;  on  the  south,  the 
great  river  of  the  Amazons;  and  on  the  west,  the  Kio  Negro,  the  canon  of 
Casiquiari,  and  the  Upper  Orinoco,  boundary  of  the  eastern  and  unexplored 
part  of  the  Kingdom  of  Santa  Fe. 

"  On  the  confines  or  limits  of  the  vast  region  of  this  province  the  French 
and  Dutch  have  occupied,  the  whole  sea-coast  loith  their  Colonies— the 
Frenc!)  in  Cayenne,  round  tiie  mouth  of  the  Amazon,  and  the  Dutch  in 
Surinam,  Bcrbiz,  and  Essequibo,  55  or  60  leagues  from  the  Great  Mouth  of 
the  Orinoco."     [B.  C.  IV.,  p.  HI.] 

In  Blue  Books,  Nos.  1  and  3,  such  reports  are  spoken  of  and  the 
assurance  offered  that  in  the  above  map  the  Dutch  were  repre- 
sented as  being  in  possession  of  the  coast  to  a  point  beyond  the 
Moroco,  but  without  giving  them,  contrary  to  the  fact,  any  occu- 
pation in  the  interior  of  the  country;  that  his  report  was  not  ap- 
proved by  the  Spanish  Government  because  of  its  being  too  favor- 
able to  the  Province  of  Guiana,  and  he  was  ordered  to  send  another; 
that  this  contained  a  greater  exaggeration  of  the  Spanish  claims, 
because  it  assigned  to  the  Province  the  boundary  above  indicated, 
which  included  the  whole  of  the  Dutch  establishments  and  all  of 
Spanish  Guiana  to  the  Amazon,  an  extent  of  territory  which  Spain 
never  had  intended  to  occupy,  and  not  even  to  claim,  unless  the 
pretension  of  the  King  of  Spain  that  all  America  belonged  to  him 
by  virtue  of  the  Papal  Bull  of  1496  could  be  considered  as  a  claim. 

When  Blue  Book  No.  3  invokes  passages  of  a  report  of  Mar- 
mion  upon  Guiana  in  general,  and  in  v^hich  he  recommended  the 


Iviii 

construction  of  a  fortress  on  the  banks  of  the  Cuyuui,  it  states 
that  the  extract  is  more  significant  as  to  the  period  from  1770  to 
1776,  when  Centurion  ha'i  reported  that  the  Province  of  Oman  a 
reached  to  the  Amazon  on  the  south  and  to  the  Atlantic  Ocean  on 
the  east;  and  that  probably  the  extravagant  assertions  of  Cen- 
turion, which  were  discredited  at  that  time  by  the  Spanish  Govern- 
ment, brought  about  the  careful  investigations  and  surveys  whicii 
are  referred  to  in  the  reports  of  Don  Miguel  Marmion. 

Far  from  the  assertions  of  Centurion  having  been  doubted  in 
Spain,  the  Spanish  Government  itself  gives  to  Guiana  the  same 
boundaries  that  he  does,  to  wit:  on  the  east  the  Atlantic  Ocean 
and  on  the  south  the  Amazon  River,  as  may  be  seen  in  the  Royal 
Cedula  of  May  5,  1768.  Lord  Salisbury  declared  it  absurd  in  his 
note  of  November  26,  1895,  to  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  because  it  absolutely  ignores  the  Dutch  settle- 
ments existing  in  1768,  not  only  in  fact,  but  recognized  by  the 
Treaty  of  Munster;  and  because  it  would,  if  considered  valid  to- 
day, transfer  to  Venezuela,  British,  Dutch  and  Spanish  Guiana 
and  an  enormous  territory  belonging  to  Brazil. 

But  the  Government  of  Venezuela  in  its  Memorandum  of 
March  28,  1896,  communicated  to  Mr.  Olney  and  the  U.  S.  Com- 
mission on  the  Venezuela- British  Guiana  Boundary,  vindicated 
that  document,  and  showed  that  there  was  nothing  absurd  about 
it;  for  as  to  the  Dutch  Colonies  recognized  in  the  Treaty  of 
Munster,  they  were  situated  on  the  coasts  or  banks  of  the  rivers 
without  penetrating  much  into  the  interior,  so  that  the  greater 
part  of  this  belonged  to  Spain;  that  Spain  had  always  claimed  to 
the  Amazon;  that  in  1750  she  had  agreed  with  Portugal  to  release 
a  part  of  the  Amazon;  but  the  agreement  being  annulled  by 
mutual  dissent  in  1761,  her  rights  were  revived,  and  she  could, 
therefore,  in  1768  declare  that  Guiana  was  bounded  by  the 
Amazon,  discovered  by  Spaniards  (the  firet  Vicente  Yanez  Pin- 
zon);  and  that  in  1777,  when  she  again  entered  into  a  treaty  with 
Portugal,  in  almost  the  same  terms  as  that  of  1750,  she  reserved 


I 


lix 

that  portion  of  the  Amazon  comprised  between  the  mouth  of  the 
Yavari  and  the  most  westerly  mouth  of  the  Yupura. 

In  the  said  Memorandum  a  great  deal  was  made  of  the  fact  that 
the  Spanish  Royal  Cedula  of  May  5,  1T68,  had  been  the  axle  upon 
which  turned  the  boundary  controversy  between  Venezuela  and 
the  former  New  Granada;  and  that  upon  the  authority  attributed 
to  it  by  the  Spanish  Monarchy,  which  was  named  arbitrator  of 
the  rights  in  the  question,  it  adjudicated  part  of  the  Orinoco  to 
the  Colombia  of  to-day,  and  also  a  great  number  of  towns  which 
Venezuela  had  possessed  on  the  other  side  of  it  for  many  years;  it 
having  been  sustained  by  the  Colombian  Government  that  pre- 
scription does  not  exist  in  law  of  nations.  Venezuela,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  agreement  of  arbitration  of  the  dispute,  had  to 
submit  to  an  award  which  deprived  her  of  no  less  than  seventy- 
seven  towns. 

It  is  thought  that  the  map  of  Centurion  represented  not  the 
right  of  the  Spanish  Province  of  Guiana,  but  the  fact  of  the 
actual  possession  of  a  Dutch  post  in  the  Moroco,  which  the 
Spaniards  had  tolerated  more  than  consented  to,  as  is  demon- 
strated by  all  the  acts  which  they  did  in  that  river  and  in  others 
situated  more  to  the  east  or  southeast  of  the  Orinoco. 

And  in  this  connection,  there  is  not  a  little  force  i'n  the  circum- 
stance that  not  only  did  Spain  officially  declare  the  boundaries  of 
Guiana  to  be  those  expressed  in  the  Royal  Cedula  of  1768,  three 
years  after  the  date  of  Centurion's  map,  but  stated  in  the  Treaty 
of  Extradition  made  with  Holland  at  Aranjuez  in  1791,  that  Puerto 
Rico,  Coro  and  Orinoco  were  Spanish  possessions,  and  Essequibo, 
Demerary,  Berbice  and  Surinam  were  Dutch  possessions;  and  the 
commission  given  to  Inciarte  on  February  27,  1779,  to  construct 
two  forts,  one  to  prevent  the  attacks  which  the  Dutch  might 
make  upon  the  town  which  it  was  proposed  to  establish  close  to 
the  creek  of  the  Rio  Moroco,  and  another  in  the  same  locality 
to  prevent  the  passage  of  all  hostile  ships,  and  to  drive  out  the 


Ix 

Dutch  from  the  advanced  post  or  guard  house  which  they  had 

built  there. 

At  the  end  of  the  statement  of  the  British  Case  regarding  the 
map  of  Centurion,  it  is  pretended  without  concealment  to  apply 
in  America  the  doctrine  called  Hinterland,  which  is,  as  says  F. 
Despagnet,  to  fix  by  means  of  an  international  agreement  a  topo- 
graphical line  within  which  each  country  has  a  right  to  occupy  or 
establish  a  protectorate  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other  contracting 
state,  that  is,  its  iTm^er^awfi  or  territory  within  the  conventional 
line.  In  other  words,  Hinterland  is,  according  to  the  same 
author,  the  prolongation  towards  the  interior  of  the  territory  first 
occupied  on  the  coast  up  to  the  limit  of  the  possessions  of  the 
other,  and  adds  that,  as  said  by  the  German  Chancellor  in  1886,  it 
is  not  so  much  the  fixing  of  the  frontiers  in  conformity  with  the 
state  of  actual  possession,  as  it  is  the  coming  to  an  understanding 
for  the  determining  of  the  spheres  of  reciprocal  interest  in  the  fu- 
ture. This  new  doctrine,  which  European  powers,  such  as  Great 
Britain,  Germany,  France  and  Portugal,  have  applied  and  are 
still  applying  with  regard  to  occupations  on  the  continent  of 
Africa,  has  not  found  a  place  in  international  law,  and  conse- 
quently is  obligatory  only  upon  the  parties  who  have  spontaneously 
adopted  it  in  their  conventions. 

In  the  corresponrlence  carried  on  in  1896  between  the  Gt)vern- 
ment  of  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  regarding  the 
Venezuelan  English  Boundary  question,  and  primarily  of  general 
arbitration,  Lord  Salisbury  wrote  on  the  18th  of  May,  as  follows: 

"  All  the  great  nations  iu  both  hemispheres  claim,  and  are  prepared  to 
(lofentl,  their  right  to  vast  tracts  of  territory  which  they  have  in  no  sense 
occupied,  and  often  have  not  fally  explored.  The  modern  doctrine  of 
'Hinterland'  with  its  inevitjible  contradictions,  indicates  the  unformed  and 
uustablo  condition  of  international  law  as  applied  to  territorial  claims  rest- 
ing on  constructive  occupation  or  control." 

To  this  \fr.  Olney  replied  that  "  'spheres  of  influence  '  and  the 
theory  or  practice  of  the  '  Hinterland  '  idea  are  things  unknown 


Ixi 

to  internatioual  law  and  do  not  as  yet  rest  upon  any  recognized 
principles  of  either  international  or  municipal  law.  They  are  new 
departures  which  certain  great  European  powers  have  found 
necessary  and  convenient  in  the  course  of  their  division  among 
themselves  of  great  tracts  of  the  continent  of  Africa,  and  which 
find  their  sanction  solely  in  their  reciprocal  stipulations." 

After  citing  the  words  of  the  modern  English  writer,  who  dis- 
cusses the  doctrine  of  ''  Hinterland"  and  says  that  the  rule  regard- 
ing the  territorial  area  affected  by  an  act  of  occupation  in  a  coun- 
try of  great  extent,  has  been  that  the  crest  of  the  watershed  is 
the  presumable  interior  boundary  of  the  territory,  and  that  the 
flank  boundaries  are  the  limits  of  the  land  drained  by  the  rivers 
which  empty  into  the  point  of  coast  occupied;  that  the  extent  of 
territory  which  may  be  claimed  by  virtue  of  an  occupation  on  the 
coast  has  so  far  been  given  a  reasonable  ratio  to  the  character  of 
the  occupation,  and  who,  asking  what  are  the  limits  of  the 
^' Hinterland,"  adds:  "Either  these  international  arrangements 
can  avail  as  between  the  parties  only  and  constitute  no  bar 
against  the  action  of  any  intruding  stranger,  07^  might  indeed  is 
right."  Mr.  Olney,  without  adopting  that  criticism  and  putting 
to  one  side  the  question  as  to  whether  the  doctrines  of  the 
"  spheres  of  influence"  and  the  doctrine  of  "  Hinterland"  are,  or 
are  not,  intrinsically  sound  and  just,  asserts  emphatically  that 
"  there  can  be  no  pretense  that  they  apply  to  the  American  conti- 
nents or  to  any  boundary  disputes  that  now  exist  there  or  may 
hereafter  arise." 

No  opinion  of  greater  authority  can  be  invoked  than  that  of 
the  noted  American  statesman  above  named,  to  reply  to  the  idea 
given  in  the  British  Case,  in  examining  the  map  of  Centurion,  by 
which  it  applies  to  doctrine  of  Hinterland  to  extend  the  scope  of 
the  Dutch  occupation  of  other  centuries,  in  opposition  to  the 
preferable  and  anterior  rights  of  Spain,  the  discoverer,  occupant 
and  colonizer  of  that  territory  of  Guiana,  hostilely  invaded  by 
Dutch  forces.     Not  only  for  the  reason  that  this  doctrine  was  quite 


Ixii 

unknown  at  that  time,  but  also  for  the  reason  that  Spain  has 
never  accepted  it,  and  because,  if  it  has  been  recently  introduced 
in  Europe,  it  has  been  in  Africa  only,  and  as  a  result  of  special 
stipulations  by  the  contracting  powers,  and  has  no  place  in  inter- 
national law  as  far  as  she  is  concerned,  the  arbitrators  cannot 
attribute  any  value  to  the  argument  refuted. 

The  reasons  here  set  forth  are  equally  applicable  to  other 
Spanish  maps  analagous  to  that  of  Centurion. 

There  accompany  the  Counter-Case  of  Great  Britain  six  maps 
by  different  authors  and  of  different  periods,  to  wit,  Diguja, 
1871;  Heneman,  1770;  Inciarte,  1779;  Porter,  1825;  Bauza,  1841, 
and  Hohenkerk,  1897,  without  any  observation  being  offered  as  to 
their  contents,  nor  the  object  for  which  they  are  presented. 

However,  it  must  be  supposed  that  they  tend  in  general  to 
rebut  the  claim  to  the  Essequibo  boundary  contended  for  by 
Venezuela. 

The  firet  is  that  of  Governor  Diguja,  in  whose  time  the 
Province  of  Barcelona  and  that  of  Guiana  formed  part  of  that  of 
Cumand,  and  purports  to  show  the  Governments  of  Caracas,  Trini- 
dad and  Margarita  bordering  thereon,  together  with  the  Dutch 
Colonies  situated  in  the  Province  of  Guiana;  the  course  of  the  great 
Orinoco  and  part  of  the  great  rivers  which  enter  in  it,  and  its 
labyrinth  of  mouths;  the  existence  of  the  Spanish  towns,  villages 
ami  places;  "doctrinas"  and  missions  of  Indians,  soldiers, 
families,  souls,  houses,  farms,  churches,  contributions  of  Indians, 
eccksiastical  state,  cocoa  farms  and  their  products,  cattle  farms 
and  how  many  head  of  cattle  there  are,  the  number  of  slaves, 
regular  troops  and  their  salaries,  debt  of  the  province,  resources  it 
counts  upon,  etc. 

If  it  is  proposed  to  deduce  from  the  map  that  the  boundaries 
of  Guiana  did  not  extend  to  the  Essequibo,  it  may  be  answered 
that  the  contrary  was  asserted  by  Governor  Diguja  himself,  as 
well  as  by  Centurion,  Marmion,  Gil  and  Inciarte,  his  successors, 
also  Father  Caulin,  Herrera,  Father  Murillo  Velarde,  Alcedo,  and 


Ixiii 

the   engineer  and   boundary   commissioner,    Don   Francisco  Re- 
quena,  etc. 

The  map  does  not  extend  to  the  eastward,  as  it  should  and  as 
is  customary;  but  we  see  on  it  the  legend  "Dutch  Colonies,"  ex- 
tending from  6  to  7  degrees  of  latitude  north  and  about  316  to 
317  of  longitude,  it  is  not  said  at  what  meridian,  in  a  space  com- 
prised between  the  rivers  Essequibo  and  Cuyuni  up  to  a  little 
beyond  the  latter.  There  appears,  and  with  its  name,  "Fort  Ze- 
landia;"  which,  as  is  known,  once  existed  in  the  Pomeroon,  but 
which  was  destroyed  by  the  English  in  1666,  without  ever  being 
re-established;  so  that  in  1761,  when  this  map  of  Diguja  was  made, 
there  was  no  such  fortress.  What  the  English  left  of  the  Pome- 
roon Colony  in  the  winter  of  1665-66  was  destroyed  by  the  invasion 
of  the  French,  which  followed  shortly  after  that  of  the  British. 
However,  as  Professor  Burr  observes,  almost  up  to  our  own 
times  "New  Middelburg"  has  continued  to  exist  on  paper  with 
its  fort  of  "  New  Zelandia."  Among  the  maps  thus  criticised  by 
him,  naturally  this  map  of  Diguja  should  be  included. 

As  to  the  proposition  in  the  British  Counter-Case  to  prove 
the  non-existence  of  the  posts  of  Queribura,  Wenamu  and 
Ma  waken,  it  may  be  said  that  the  opposite  assertion  is  found  in 
an  official  communication  of  the  Director-General  of  Essequibo, 
Storm  van's  Gravesande,  who  was  himself  informed  of  it  by  the 
report  of  the  postholder  of  Arinda  and  the  information  given  by 
the  colonist,  Francis  Couvreur.  These  communications  bear  date 
as  follows:  that  of  T.  Steyner,  the  said  postholder.  May  28,  1756, 
and  that  of  the  Director  of  Essequibo  to  the  Dutch  West  Indian 
Company,  July  7th  of  same  year.  Consequently,  Diguja,  in 
making  a  map  in  1761,  might  have  information  of  the  three 
places  referred  to;  but  his  silence  regarding  them  might  be  the 
-  result  of  ignorance,  or  due  to  the  lack  of  data,  and  his  omission 
a  similar  error  to  that  committed  in  naming  the  fort  of  "  New 
Zelandia  "  which  had  disappeared  almost  a  century  before. 

The  British  Case,  as  though  this  were  enough,  has  contented 


Ixiv 

itself  with  denying  the  facts  believed  by  the  Dutch  officer  Grave- 
sande.  Mr.  Michael  McTurk,  Commissioner  of  the  District  of  the 
Essequibo  and  Pomeroon  Rivers,  and  who  figures  in  another  char- 
acter since  1884,  in  the  invasions  of  Venezuelan  territory  ordered 
by  the  Home  Government  and  that  of  the  Colony,  in  a  printed 
aflfidavit  on  page  234,  Volume  VII  of  the  Appendix  to  the  British 
Case,  and  sworn  to  on  the  first  of  November,  1897,  before  M.  P. 
Alton,  Commissioner  of  Affidavits  for  British  Guiana,  says,  among 
other  things,  what  follows: 

"2.  1  know  the  River  Siparuni,  a  tributary  of  the  River  Essequibo. 
There  is,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  no  place  on  it  called  Mawaken,  and  I  have 
never  heard  nor  do  I  believe  that  there  ever  was  a  Mission  founded  by  the 
Spaniards  on  the  banks  or  in  the  neighborhood  of  that  river. 

''3.  1  know  the  River  Massaruni,  having  frequently  ascended  both  it  and 
its  tributaries.  There  is  no  place  on  or  near  it  called  Queribura,  nor  is 
there  any  local  tradition  that  the  Spaniards  had  at  any  time  a  mission  or 
settlement  in  the  surrounding  country.  I  know  the  place  marked  on  the 
map  at  (Jurabiri  near  the  mouth  of  the  Puruni,  which  it  has  been  suggested  is 
the  same  as  Queribura.  From  the  nature  of  the  situation  it  is  quite  unfit 
for  a  Mission,  nor  could  one  have  been  placed  there,  as  it  is  merely  the  name 
of  a  small  fall  or  rapid  in  the  river,  and  owing  to  the  surrounding  country 
U'iug  swampy  forest  it  is  eminently  unsuitable  for  any  mission  or  settle- 
ment. 

"  4.  .  .  .  I  know  the  River  Wenamu,  a  tributary  on  the  right  bank 
of  the  Cuyuni.  I  have  never  heard  that  there  ever  was  a  Spanish  Mission 
in  that  part,  but  I  have  been  informed  that  the  Dutch  lived  in  that  river." 
[B.  C,  VII,  p.  234.] 

By  the  foregoing  it  is  seen : 

1.  That  the  Director- General  of  Essequibo  and  the  postholder 
of  Avrndi^.  positively  assert  the  existence  of  those  three  places,  and 
Mr.  McTurk  denies  it.  2.  That  the  Director- General  of  Essequibo 
and  the  postholder  of  Arinda,  as  Dutchmen,  had  an  interest  in 
concealing  the  existence  of  the  settlements  which  they  make 
known,  on  account  of  its  possible  influence  upon  the  boundary 
between  their  territories  and  those  of  Spain,  but  they  confess  it 
nevertheless;  while  Mr.  McTurk,  a  British  officer  and  an  old  and 


Ixv 

vigorous  ageut  in  the  plans  of  expropriation  of  Venezuela,  under- 
takes with  all  the  zeal  he  is  capable  of  to  consummate  them; 
and  therefore  is  entitled  to  little  credit,  above  all  when  he  has  in- 
trenched himself  in  the  camp  of  denials. 

The  second  map  presented  is  that  drawn  by  Heneman  in  1770, 
and  is  entitled: 

"Sketch  Map  of  the  Boundaries  between  Royal-Spanish  and  Dutch 
Guiana  on  the  mainland  of  South  America;  belonging  to  the  Report 
hereon,    conceived  and    chartered   by  v.    Heneman,  sworn 

Engineer." 

Nothing  better  can  be  said  regarding  it  than  what  was  written 
by  Professor  Burr  in  his  report  upon  the  official  maps  presented  to 
the  Washington  Commission.  Therefore,  as  it  is  included  in  this 
category,  its  partiality  in  favor  of  Holland  is  put  in  evidence. 

"But  there  exists  another  map  by  Heneman,  of  quite  another  interest 
and  importance;  the  one  map,  so  far  as  I  am  able  to  learn,  ever  devoted  to 
the  boundary  between  Spanish  and  Dutch  Guiana  (the  map  is  uncolored, 
except  for  a  stripe  of  red  along  the  boundary  line;  this  comes  out  only 
imperfectly  in  the  reproduction.  That  the  map  is  a  copy,  not  Heneman's 
autograph  manuscript,  is  made  probable  by  the  omission  of  his  initials, 
due  doubtless  to  that  puzzling  monogram  already  mentioned).  It  now  lies 
in  the  library  of  the  department  of  the  colonies  at  The  Hague,  though  how 
it  came  there  it  is  hard  to  guess.  Labels  still  decipherable  on  its  back 
.seem  to  show  that  it  once  belonged  to  tlie  collection  of  the  West  India 
Company.    Further  clew  I  have  not  found.     The  map's  title  runs  : 

"  '  Sketch  Map  of  the  Boundaries  between  Royal-Spanish  and  Dutch 
Guiana  on  the  mainland  of  South  America  ;  belonging  to  the  Report 
liereon,  conceived  and  charted   by  v.    Heneman,   sworn  En- 

gineer.' 

"  The  report  here  mentioned  cannot  be  found.     It  forms  no  part  of 
that  submitted  by  Heneman  to  the  West  India  Company  in  September, 
1776,   which  nowhere  makes  mention  of  this  boundary.     It  is  not  impos- 
sible  that  it  was  handed   in  at  the  same  time  as  a  confidential  report. 
|What  makes  it  improbable  are  the  differences  between  his  general  map  and 
lis  special  one,  and  notably  the  difference   in  the  boundary  line   itself. 
'he  boundary  leaves  the  ooast,  indeed,   at   what  may  be   meant  for  the 
^same    point,   though    changes    in    the  contour  of   the  coast  and  in  the 


Ixvi 

spelling  of  names,  the  insertion  of  a  new  river  (the  *  Moc- 
comocco')  and  the  omission  of  an  old  cape  (*Caap  Breme') 
leare  this  somewhat  uncertain.  What  is  more  significant  is 
its  change  in  direction.  Instead  of  running  south-southwest, 
as  in  the  general  map  (and  in  D'Anville's),  it  has  veered  two  full  points  of 
the  compass,  and  now  runs  due  southwest,  no  longer  cutting  (as  in  D'An- 
ville's map)  the  Cuyuni  and  the  Mazaruni,  but  crossing  the  head  waters  of 
the  great  branches  of  the  Orinoco — the  Aguire,  the  Caroni,  the  Caura,  the 
'Paruma'  (D'Anville's  'Pararuma').  Just  beyond  its  intersection  with 
the  last-named  stream  this  western  boundary  of  Dutch  Guiana  turns  at  a 
sharp  angle  and  becomes  the  southern  boundary,  running  thence  east  by 
south  to  the  edge  of  the  map.  When,  at  whose  instance,  and  for  what 
purpose  this  map  was  made,  and  what  sanction,  if  any,  it  ever  received,  it 
would  be  of  exceeding  interest  to  know.  I  have  sought  in  vain  for  any 
mention  of  it  in  the  minutes,  both  open  and  secret,  of  the  West  India 
Company  and  of  the  saccessive  councils  which  until  1803  followed  it  in  the 
government  of  the  Guiana  colonies.  It  is  possible  that  it  may  have  been 
prepared  for  the  Stadhouder,  who  shared  the  passion  for  geography  com- 
mon among  the  princes  of  his  time  and  who  gathered  a  rich  collection  of 
maps;  but  if  so,  he  seems  never  to  have  made  a  communication  regarding 
it  to  the  bodies  administering  the  affairs  of  the  colonies."  [V.  C.-C,  vol. 
2,  pp.  246-248.] 

After  showing  the  career  of  Heneman  up  to  1804,  Professor 
Burr  concludes  his  statement  as  to  this  map  as  follows: 

"  How  naturally  at  any  time  during  this  long  service  Heneman  might 
have  been  turned  to  for  such  a  map  as  that  in  question  is  apparent. 
The  absence  from  his  map,  however,  of  any  indication  at  the  mouth 
of  the  Demerara  of  the  new  colonial  capital,  Stabroek  which  was  founded 
in  1782,  makes  it  tolerably  certain  that  the  map  antedates  the  English  oc- 
cupation of  1781.  And  the  fact  that  Santo  Thom6  appears  at  the  old  site 
below  the  Caroni  instead  of  at  the  new  one  of  Angostura,  to  which  it  was 
removed  in  1764,  as  he  could  perhaps  have  learned  from  Spanish  maps 
available  to  him  in  Amsterdam— for  those  of  Cruz  Cano  and  Surville  had 
now  been  published— adds  ground  for  the  belief  that  he  made  it  before 
leaving  Guiana  in  1778.  In  that  case  it  seems  most  probable  that  it  was  a 
special  task  confidentially  assigned  him  as  a  supplement  to  that  completed 
in  September,  1776,  and  that  the  changes  from  the  earlier  map  grew  out  of 
further  study,  or  perhaps  out  of  the  suggestion  to  which  the  new  map  owed 
its  birth."    [V.  C,  vol.  2,  p.  250.] 


Ixvii 
The  first  map  of  HeneQian,  which  was  to  be  a  general  one,  Pro- 
fessor Burr  says  was  probably  never  completed  by  reason  of  the 
necessary  expense;  that,  however  that  may  be,  no  such  map  is 
now  to  be  found  among  the  archives  of  the  company;  but  there 
exists  there  a  mere  sketch  map,  giving  the  results  of  his  surveys, 
and  meant  as  a  basis  for  a  more  elaborate  one.  It  comprises  the 
colonies  of  the  Demerara  and  Essequibo  Rivers,  as  also  the  aban- 
doned colony  of  Pomeroon,  part  of  that  of  the  River  Berbice, 
with  the  further  districts,  rivers  and  creeks  of  the  above  named 
colonies,  as  likewise  the  contour  of  the  sea-coast  and  its  banks, 
etc. 

With  regard  to  this  sketch  map,  Burr  adds  the  following: 

"  This  map  bears  no  date,  and  it  cannot  be  quite  certain  that  it  was 
transmitted  with  its  author's  report  in  September,  1776.  Yet  this  is  evert/ 
way  probable;  and,  in  any  case,  as  Heneman  now  returned  to  Surinam,  the 
map's  information  belongs  to  this  period.  When  there  are  taken  into  ac- 
count the  haste  and  the  hindrances  of  his  work,  and  the  fact  that  at  the 
same  time  he  prepared  and  submitted  several  local  charts  and  many  elabo- 
rate tables,  great  accuracy  as  to  the  remoter  parts  of  the  colonies  will  hardly 
be  expected;  and  in  particular  his  portrayal  of  what  lies  west  of  the  Esse- 
quibo and  the  Pomeroon  does  not  suggest  personal  observation.  Botli  as 
to  the  coast  region  and  as  to  the  upper  course  of  the  Cuyuni  and  Mazaruni, 
it  seems — what  it  doubtless  is — a  mere  adaptation  of  the  map  of  D'Anville. 
It  is,  perhaps,  therefore,  needless  to  conjecture  any  other  source  for  the 
boundary  line  which  appears  for  a  short  stretch  at  the  northwest  corner  of 
the  map.  Both  in  point  of  departure  on  the  coast  and  in  direction  it  con- 
curs nearly,  though  not  quite  exactly,  with  D'Anville's  line — starting  a 
trifle  more  to  the  east  and  trending  a  trifle  more  to  the  west."  [V.  0.,  vol. 
2,  pp.  245-6.] 

In  the  accompanying  Atlas,  called  Volume  IV  of  the  Venezue- 
lan Case,  there  have  been  reproduced  three  maps  of  Heneman, 
Nos.  63,  64  and  65,  namely,  that  of  the  mouth  of  the  Cuyuni, 
17Y2,  and  that  of  Essequibo  and  Demerara,  1^75,  both  taken  from 
the  Atlas  of  the  United  States  Commission;  and  that  of  the  bound- 
ary line  between  Spanish  and  Dutch  Guiana,  which  it  is  said  it  re- 
produced from  the  manuscript  original  existing  in  the  Department 


Ixviii 

of  the  Library  of  the  Colonies  at  the  Hague,  No.  438  of  the  Cata- 
logue. It  bears,  with  an  interrogation  expressing  a  doubt,  the  year 
1776  and  has  no  colors;  while  the  map  attached  to  the  British 
Counter-Case  represents  in  yellow  the  islands  of  Orinoco  and  Esse- 
quibo,  and  the  rivers  in  blue;  as  well  as  indicating  in  red  the  divid- 
ing line  between  Spanish  and  Dutch  Guiana.  It  is  given,  without 
hesitation,  the  year  1770,  when  Heneman  had  not  yet  arrived  in 
the  Dutch  Colonies  of  America,  as  it  was  in  1772  that  he  visited 
Essequibo  for  the  first  time,  and  before  that  time  he  had  only  ex- 
ecuted a  new  map  of  the  Surinam  Colony,  as  is  seen  from  a  peti- 
tion addressed  by  him  in  1769  to  the  Directors  of  that  Colony.  The 
copy  produced  is  certified  at  the  foot  in  Dutch,  the  words  meaning  in 
Spanish  "A  true  copy,  C.  A.  Eckstein,  Director  of  the  Topograph- 
ical Institute,"  without  any  indication  of  place  or  date. 

These  differences  seem  of  little  meaning.  The  esssential  thing 
is  that  the  line  of  Heneman  lacks  all  foundation,  and  the  reasons 
upon  which  he  has  based  it  are  unknown.  Professor  Burr  asserts 
it  is  only  an  adaptation  of  the  D'Anville  line,  which  he  accepted, 
not  by  reason  of  his  personal  information  or  of  its  official  author- 
ity, but  on  account  of  its  general  reputation  for  correctness. 

Mr.  Mallet- Pre vost,  in  his  report  upon  the  cartographical  tes- 
timony of  geographers,  has  made  clear  that  Delisle  drew  a 
regional  line  between  the  Spanish  possessions  and  the  country 
which  was  wild  and  uncolonized  to  the  east,  without  stating  it  to 
be  the  boundary  of  the  Essequibo  settlements,  which  are  not 
shown  on  the  map,  and  without  alleging  any  reason  why  in  such 
a  case  it  should  begin  at  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco,  as  that  of 
Bouchenroeder,  who  asserted,  although  falsely,  the  existence  of  a 
Dutch  Fort  m  the  Amacuro,  confounded  by  him  with  the  Bariraa; 
that  D'Anville  erroneously  converted  it  into  a  political  line,  and 
that  a  multitude  of  geographers  have  followed  in  his  steps  and 
copied  his  work  in  a  mechanical  manner;  that  Gravesande  and  the 
Dutch  West  India  Company  did  not  know  where  the  boundary 
was,  nor  the  manner  of  determining  it;  and  that  when  the  map  of 


Ixix 
D'Anville  came  to  their  knowledge  they  accepted  it  at  once  in 
consideration  of  his  authority,  but  without  knowing  in  the  least 
any  historical  fact  whereby  to  fix  it,  and  that  thus  it  is  not  based 
upon  historical  research  nor  upon  the  inquiries  of  the  people  who 
must  be  supposed  to  have  been  best  informed  about  the  facts;  and 
that  the  so  called  Schomburgk  line  was  taken  by  him  from  the  maps 
of  Arrowsmith,  which  line  was  in  turn  derived  successively  through 
Bouchenroeder,  Jefferys,  Thompson,  D'Anville  and  Delisle;  and  that 
there  never  would  have  been  proposed  such  a  line  as  Schomburgk's 
if  Delisle  had  not  marked  out  a  century  before  the  western  limits 
of  the  Spanish  usurpation  upon  savage  Guiana;  and  if  the  error  of 
D'Anville,  who  badly  interpreted  Delisle,  had  not  been  perpetuated 
by  a  multitude  of  geographers  and  map  makers,  who,  without 
examination,  accepted  the  authority  of  the  great  name  of  D'An- 
ville. 

The  third  map  presented  by  the  British  Counter-Case  is  one 
entitled:  *'  No.  110.  Plan  of  various  lands  of  the  Lower  Orinoco, 
drawn  by  Don  Jose  Felipe  de  Inciarte,  and  mentioned  in  No.  37  of 
the  Extract." 

There  is  placed  on  it  the  date  of  1779.  It  indicates  hills, 
savannas,  and  valleys  for  different  purposes,  a  site  upon  vrhich  if 
an  outpost  and  a  town  were  made  it  would  cut  off  the  communi- 
cation which  the  Dutch  hold  through  these  streams  with  the  In- 
dians of  the  same  and  of  the  Orinoco,  "  a  little  hill  on  the  bank  of 
the  Barima,  which  it  will  be  well  to  fortify  "  ;  "the  banks  at  the 
mouths  of  the  Barima,  Guiama  and  Baruma,  although  marked 
with  crosses,  consist  of  mud  and  sand  without  any  stones  what- 
ever ";  "  Post  or  Guard,  that  the  Dutch  have  in  the  Moruca  River  "  ; 
'•Villages  and  Farms  of  the  Indians  of  the  Arawak  Nation"; 
"  the  number  of  feet  of  water  which  are  found  in  navigating  along 
the  coast,  from  Baruma  as  far  as  the  northern  end  of  the  Waini 
mud  bank,  without  going  out  to  sea  more  than  a  league,  nor  com- 
ing nearer  to  land  more  than  half  a  league." 

At  the  end  of  these  explanations,  some  being  marked  with 


Ixx 

numbers  and  others  with  capital  letters,  is  the  following  "  Note: 
That  all  the  lands  which  this  plan  has  left  without  other  indica- 
tion, are  low,  without  hills,  alniost  all  overflowed  and  marshy, 
and  therefore  unsuitable  for  farms;  they  are  covered  with  num- 
bers of  mango  trees  (these  in  great  quantity),  also  puruas,  zapa- 
teros   and    mulberry    trees,   and    an  abundance  of  tiraity  and 

manaca." 

At  the  foot  there  appear,  at  the  right,  these  words:  "  A  true 
copy  of  the  original  existing  in  the  archives  of  this  bureau.  Nico- 
las de  Urata,  Commissioner  of  E.  M.,  Chief  of  Bureau." 

"  Visaed :  Benites,  Colonel,  Chief  of  the  Department  of 
War." 

It  lacks  an  indication  of  the  place  and  date  in  which  the  cer- 
tification was  made,  and  the  nation  and  the  archives  from  which 
the  map  was  taken. 

Certainly  it  must  be  Spanish,  but  it  does  not  say  so. 

In  the  report  of  Inciarte  to  Senor  Jose  de  Abalos,  dated  at  Car- 
acas, November  27,  1779,  he  says: 

**  Ilerewith  I  seud  to  Your  Excellency  a  plan  of  all  the  lands  I  have 
visited,  remarking  that,  of  all  that  said  plan  contains  only  the  branch 
Macuro,  part  of  the  Tapacuma,  the  part  of  the  branch  from  Visororun  and 
the  river  Essequibo  have  been  drawn  according  to  information  of  the  In- 
diaus,  while  all  the  rest  has  been  drawn  with  the  distances  and  demarca- 
tions which  I  have  personally  taken  in  surveying  the  lands  during  the 
exi)edition."    [V.  C.  vol.  2,  p.  438.] 

Doubtless,  this  is  the  map  now  presented  by  Great  Britain. 

There  has  not  been  found  a  map  of  the  Province  of  Guiana,  of 
which  mention  is  made  in  the  narration  of  the  visit  made  to  In- 
ciarte when  he  was  Governor  thereof,  at  the  beginning  of  this 
century,  by  an  officer  of  the  Dutch  colony,  to  whom  he  presented 
a  copy  upon  his  return,  as  a  favor  added  to  many  others  which  he 
had  heaped  upon  him. 

For  what  purpose  the  map  of  Inciarte  has  now  been  produced 
18  not  divined.    If  it  is  because  it  shows  the  Moruka  post,  it  is 


Ixxi 

well  to  remember  that  Spain  has  never  denied  its  existence,  but 
considered  it  as  the  result  of  her  own  toleration  and  not  of  right. 

When  Inciarte  was  commissioned  to  establish  towns  in  the 
province  of  Guiana  and  to  occupy  the  territories  of  its  eastern 
part,  by  the  Commandant-General,  Don  Jose  de  Abalos,  the  latter 
informed  him  that  as  the  boundaries  of  Guiana  commenced  on  the 
east  to  the  windward  of  the  outflow  of  the  River  Orinoco  into  the 
sea  on  the  border  of  the  Dutch  Colony  of  Essequibo,  that  this  and 
the  other  colonies  of  the  States-General  were  nearly  all  on  the 
banks  of  the  rivers  near  the  seashore,  and  that  to  the  rear  of  Es- 
sequibo and  the  other  Dutch  possessions  running  to  the  eastward 
as  far  as  French  Guiana,  and  on  the  South  as  far  as  the  Amazon 
River,  the  land  was  unoccupied  by  the  Dutch,  and  only  occupied 
by  the  gentle  Indians  and  a  large  number  of  fugitive  slaves  of  the 
Dutch  and  also  of  the  plantations  of  Guiana;  for  which  reason  the 
commissioners  should  effect  the  occupation  of  those  lands  as  be- 
longing to  Spain,  their  first  discoverer,  and  not  ceded  thereafter 
nor  occupied  at  that  time  by  any  other  power,  nor  did  any  other 
power  have  any  title  thereto,  advancing  in  the  occupation  towards 
the  east  as  much  as  possible  until  reaching  French  Guiana  and  ex- 
tending themselves  also  as  far  as  possible  on  the  south  until  reach- 
ing the  frontiers  of  the  crown  of  Portugal. 

By  a  Royal  Cedula  of  the  first  of  October,  1780,  the  construc- 
tion of  the  two  forts  near  the  Essequibo  was  ordered,  as  well  as 
the  ousting  of  the  Dutch  from  the  post  or  advanced  guard  which 
they  had  constructed  on  the  Moruka.  Finally,  Inciarte  in  his 
last  report  of  September  5,  1783,  concludes  by  highly  recom- 
mending the  occupation  of  that  Moruka  post,  abandoned  by  the 
Dutch  by  reason  of  the  French  having  overpowered  the  colony  of 
Essequibo,  and  he  also  urges  its  provisional  fortification,  and  the 
establishment  of  a  town  of  the  native  Indians  which  inhabited 
that  neighborhood. 

Among  the  documents  of  Venezuela  there  has  been  printed  a 
petition  of  citizens  of  Guiana  to  the  Spanish  Government  against 


Ixxii 

Inciarte  for  not  having  carried  into  effect  the  founding  of  the 
towns  which  he  was  instructed  to  do  before  he  was  made  Gov- 
ernor of  that  province. 

The  fourth  map  is  a  copy  made  in  Caracas  about  1825,  and  sent 
to  the  British  Museum  by  Sir  Robert  Ker  Porter,  then  Consul  of 
Great  Britain  here,  presumably  from  a  Spanish  sketch  of  many 
years eariier.  It  is  called  "Topographical  Chart  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  Caroni."  It  is  not  known  who  was  the  author,  and  has 
the  names  of  many  of  the  ancient  missions.  It  is  not  certain 
what  relation  it  has  to  the  boundary  question. 

The  fifth  map  is  of  1841  and  by  the  Spanish  engineer,  Don 
Felipe  Bauzd,  comprising  various  provinces  and  parts  of  others, 
among  these  Guiana.  It  is  founded  upon  the  work  of  Churucca, 
and  Fidalgo,  as  well  as  that  Ferrer,  and  very  particulaily  upon  that 
of  Baron  de  Humboldt,  and  on  the  unpublished  charts  and 
private  plans  of  Solano,  and  on  those  of  the  campaign  of  Gen- 
eral Murillo,  and  many  documents  of  the  officers  of  the  Royal 
Armarda,  Doz  and  Guerrero,  and  of  the  engineers  Cramer  and 
Primo  de  Rivera,  of  Don  Jose  de  Inciarte  and  of  the  pilot  of 
the  Spanish  trade  to  the  Indies,  Don  Joaquin  Morreno.  It  is 
duly  certified  in  Madrid  on  May  4,  1898,  by  the  archivist  of 
the  Archives  of  the  Hydrographic  Office,  Senor  Joaquin  de 
Ariza,  for  James  H.  Reddan,  Commissioner  of  the  Government 
of  Her  Britannic  Majesty.  It  shows  all  of  the  towns,  villages, 
places,  existing  and  ruined,  missions,  ranches,  farms,  sugar 
mills,  cattle  farms,  castles,  towers,  Indian  villages,  silver  mines, 
trails,  roads  and  royal  highways. 

It  gives  as  the  boundaries  of  British  Guiana  a  hne  which 
starts  from  a  point  on  Moruka  Creek  and  runs  in  a  south- 
westerly direction  to  the  Rinocote  Mountains,  and  from  thence 
runs  to  the  southeast  and  terminates  at  the  source  of  the 
Pomeroon  River,  apparently  in  conformity  with  that  of  Hum- 
boldt, which  is  elsewhiere  analyzed. 

The  last  is  a  chart  of  the  mouth  of  the  Waini  River  and 


Ixxiii 
the  Mora  or  Morawhanna  Passage,  which  it  says  is  situate  in 
the  northwest  district  of  the  colony  of  British  Guiana,  sur- 
veyed by  L.  S.  Hohenkerk,  Government  Surveyor,  on  October 
28,  1897. 

Probably  it  is  intended  to  illustrate  the  attitude  taken  by 
the  British  Counter-Case  in  the  matter  of  the  topographic 
configuration  of  the  territory  in  dispute. 

Caracas,  October  22,  1898. 

(Signed)       Rafael  Seuas. 


THE  LINES  OF  SCHOMBURGK  AND  OF  CODAZZL 

ITranslation.] 

The  line  drawn  by  Schomburgk  is  in  no  wise  binding  upon  Ven- 
ezuela just  as  the  line  traced  by  Codazzi  is  in  no  wise  obligatorj- 
upon  Great  Britain.  These  lines  constitute  no  legal  evidence,  and 
will  have  before  the  arbitrators  only  a  relative  moral  value,  and 
rest  exclusively  upon  the  authority,  capability  and  independence 
that  they  accord  to  the  authors  thereof.  In  such  respects  the 
Codazzi  line  has  a  greater  moral  value  than  can  be  conceded  to  that 
of  Schomburgk.     Let  us  proceed  to  demonstrate  it. 

Schomburgk  visited  Guiana  for  the  first  time  in  1834,  when  he 
was  thirty  years  of  age.  He  was  then  a  young  man  who,  having 
failed  in  his  original  trade  of  tobacconist  in  the  United  States,  had 
changed  his  profession,  and  thereupon  essayed  that  of  surveyor. 
He  arrived  in  Demarara  as  an  employe  of  the  Royal  Geographical 
Society  of  London,  for  the  purpose  of  exploring  British  Guiana. 
Subsequently  he  continued  his  work  in  the  pay  of  the  British  Gov- 
ernment, until  1843,  when  he  left  it  completed,  and  we  are  not 
surprised  that  he  fixed  the  limit  of  Demarara  at  the  right  bank  of 
the  Orinoco;  what  surprises  us  is  that  he  should  not  have  placed  it 


Ixxiv 

on  the  left  bank,  and  even  farther  still  within  the  lands  lying  to 
the  west  of  the  Caribbean  Sea. 

The  Codazzi  line  has  quite  a  different  source.  Born  in  Italy, 
and  brilliantly  educated  as  a  mathematician,  Codazzi  undertook  a 
voyage  to  old  Colombia,  fascinated  by  the  glories  of  the  Liberator 
Bolivar,  and  stimulated  by  his  own  desire  for  a  military  career,  in 
which  he  had  distinguished  himself  in  his  native  country,  having 
taken  part  in  the  campaigns  of  1812  to  1815  as  an  engineer  officer. 
The  Italo- Britannic  army  in  which  he  had  served  having  been  dis- 
banded after  the  last  campaign,  he  gave  himself  to  travel,  and 
visited  Greece,  Wallachia,  Moldavia,  and  Germany.  He  was  also 
in  Rome,  Poland,  Prussia,  Denmark,  Sweden  and  Holland.  It 
was  in  Amsterdam  that  he  was  struck  with  the  desire  to  go  to  the 
land  of  Bolivar,  and  from  there  set  sail  for  the  United  States, 
bound  for  Colombia.  By  1820  he  had  already  enlisted  in  the 
Colombian  army  in  the  service  of  his  adopted  country,  in  which 
he  obtained  the  full  rank  of  Colonel  of  Engineers. 

He  employed  the  years  1828  and  1829  in  preparing  the  coro- 
graphic  chart  of  the  whole  Department  of  Zulia.  The  work  was 
so  perfect  that  upon  its  recommendation  by  General  Paez  to  the 
Constituent  Congress  of  1830,  that  august  body  ordered  that  maps 
of  the  entire  Republic  be  made,  and  Colonel  Codazzi  was  desig- 
nated by  the  Executive  to  undertake  the  arduous  task.  In  this  he 
spent  ten  years,  and  then  pubhshed  in  Paris  in  1840  the  result  of 
his  splendid  and  valuable  work.  In  the  study  of  the  Province  of 
Guiana  he  spent  the  years  1838  and  1839  traversing  its  deserts, 
navigating  its  mighty  rivers,  and  studying,  upon  the  land,  with 
the  documents  before  him,  the  frontiers  bordering  upon  Brazil 
and  British  Guiana. 

The  work  of  Codazzi  merited  the  most  sincere  approbation  of 
men  of  science  of  his  age.  The  French  Academy  congratulated 
the  Venezuelan  Congress  for  the  protection  it  had  accorded  to  the 
work  of  the  wise  geographer.  The  Geographical  Society  of  Paris 
awarded  him  the  annual  iBrst  prize,  consisting  of  a  silver  medal. 


Ixxv 

The  Geographical  Society  of  London  sent  him  a  communication 
abounding  in  flattering  expressions  for  the  author.  The  Insti- 
tute for  the  Promotion  of  Science  in  Washington  elected  him  a 
corresponding  member.  His  Majesty  Louis  Phillipe,  King  of  the 
French,  decorated  him  with  the  Cross  of  the  Legion  of  Honor. 
And,  finally,  his  adopted  country  received  him  with  great  enthu- 
siasm, and  the  Government  of  Venezuela  declared  that  by  such 
important  surveys  Colonel  Codazzi  had  made  himself  worthy  of 
national  recognition. 

When  the  two  men — the  geographer  and  the  surveyor — are 
compared  one  with  the  other,  Codazzi  appears  a  giant  and 
Schomburgk  a  pigmy.  So  that  the  moral  worth  of  the  work  of 
Codazzi  is  undoubtedly  superior  to  the  work  of  Schomburgk. 

Notwithstanding  this,  the  Government  of  Venezuela,  in  the 
copious  array  of  documents  which  this  discussion  has  brought 
forth,  never  boasted  of  the  work  of  Codazzi;  but  on  the  other 
hand,  since  1841,  the  British  Government  has  never  ceased  to 
invoke  the  work  of  Schomburgk,  as  if  it  were  an  irrefutable 
authority,  an  incontrovertible  proof  of  its  right,  a  definitive 
proprietary  title  drawn  up  in  its  favor  by  that  surveyor.  Why, 
the  name  of  Schomburgk  has  been  used  to  such  an  extent  in  the 
British  publications  that  if  one  were  to  take  the  trouble  to  ab- 
stract this  name  every  time  it  has  been  used  in  the  British  docu- 
ments since  1841,  and  place  the  names  so  collected  in  a  row,  there 
would  be  formed  a  line  many  kilometers  in  length,  which  would 
be  the  true  Schomburgk  line,  and  which  would  have  a  greater 
moral  value  than  the  original  line  drawn  by  him  in  1841. 

Paris,  November  4,  1898, 
(signed)        J.  M.  de  Rojas, 

Agent  of  Venezuela. 


Ixxvi 


BRITISH   DIPLOMACY   IN    CARACAS    FROM 
J830   TO    J850. 

[Translation.] 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  Great  Britain  gave  very  valuable  as- 
sistance to  old  Colombia  during  her  war  for  independence.  Vene- 
zuela, upon  separating  from  Colombia  in  1830,  exerted  herself  to 
recognize  those  services  by  a  very  cordial  friendship,  to  which  end 
one  of  her  first  diplomatic  acts  was  the  sending  of  a  Minister  to 
London,  for  the  purpose  of  resigning  the  treaty  of  commerce  and 
navigation  made  by  Great  Britain  in  1825  with  the  old  Republic  of 
Colombia.  The  Venezuelan  Envoy  signed  the  said  treaty  without 
completing  it,  as  was  provided  in  one  of  the  articles  of  the  treaty 
which  was  signed  in  Bogota  in  the  greatest  hurry,  and  in  conse- 
quence it  remained  without  the  time  of  its  duration  being  fixed. 
But  in  the  period  of  sixty-nine  years  which  have  elapsed  since 
then,  each  time  that  the  Government  of  Venezuela  has  proposed 
to  revoke  the  said  treaty  the  Government  of  Her  Britanic  Majesty 
has  claimed  that  the  treaty  was  perpetual,  and  could  not  be  re- 
voked without  the  terms  of  its  proposed  substitute  being  previ- 
ously made  known,  basing  such  an  extraordinary  position, 
perhaps,  upon  the  wording  of  the  first  article  of  said  treaty,  which 
reads  as  follows: 

I.  **  There  shall  be  perpetual,  firm  and  sincere  Amity  between 
the  Dominions  and  Subjects  of  His  Majesty  the  King  of  the 
United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  His  Heirs  and 
Successors,  and  the  State  and  Peoples  of  Colombia." 

Such  a  doctrine  is  to-day  repudiated  by  the  principal  professors 
of  international  law,  who  hold  that  when  a  treaty  of  commerce 
has  not  fixed  the  limit  of  its  duration,  it  is  understood  that  each 
party  has  the  right  to  revoke  it  upon  giving  one  year's  notice  to 
the  other. 


Ixxvii 

The  first  diplomatic  agent  of  Great  Britain  in  Caracas  was  that 
distinguished  gentleman,  Sir  Robert  Ker  Porter.  He  was  born  in 
Durham  in  1780,  so  that  when,  in  1836,  he  requested  the  Govern- 
ment of  Venezuela  to  establish  a  lighthouse  on  Barima  Point,  he 
was  already  fifty-six  years  of  age.  Sir  Robert  Ker  Porter  arrived 
in  Venezuela  with  the  prestige  of  his  antecedents  as  a  soldier,  a 
diplomat,  litterateur  and  artist,  he  being  a  noted  painter,  and  had, 
in  1804,  been  called  to  Russia  and  appointed  historical  painter  to 
the  Emperor.  In  1811  he  married  Princess  Marie,  daughter  of 
Prince  Theodore  de  Sherbatoff,  of  Russia.  He  served  his  native 
country  as  a  diplomat  and  soldier  in  various  places  on  the  Conti- 
nent of  Europe  —in  Russia,  Persia  and  Spain — and  also  in  South 
America.  In  1841,  with  permission  of  his  Government,  he  left 
Caracas  for  Europe,  and  died  suddenly  in  St.  Petersburg  on  May  3, 
1842,  a  few  hours  after  having  taken  leave  of  the  Emperor.  It  is 
inexplicable  that  a  man  of  such  great  personal  prestige  should 
invite  the  Government  of  Venezuela  to  establish  a  lighthouse  on 
Point  Barima  without  the  authorization  of  his  Government,  and 
at  least  without  informing  it  of  his  action,  while  it  appears  from 
the  books  presented  that  the  British  Government  only  had  notice 
of  it  in  1842. 

So  cordial  at  this  time  were  the  diplomatic  relations  between 
Venezuela  and  Great  Britain  that  in  1837  King  William  IV.,  as  a 
token  of  admiration  for  the  conduct  of  General  Paez,  father  of 
the  Independence  of  the  Republic,  and  its  first  President,  pre- 
sented him  with  a  sword  bearing  the  following  inscription: 

**  The  gift  of  King  William  the  Fourth  to  General  Paez,  as 
"  a  mark  of  esteem  for  his  character,  and  for  the  disinterested 
*'  patriotism,  which  has  distinguished  his  gallant  and  victorious 
"  career,  1837." 

This  explains  why  the  mission  of  the  surveyor,  Robert 
Schomburgk,  to  the  Orinoco,  in  1841,  caused  an  immense  surprise 
in  Venezuela;  but  the  Government  being  desirous  of  cultivating 
the  most  friendly  relations  with  Great  Britain,  permitted  itself  to 


Ixxviii 

submit  to  a  foreigner's  thus,  without  previous  permission  on  its 
part,  invading  its  territory  armed  with  authority  and  instructions 
to  ascertain  what  belonged  to  the  British  Colony. 

At  the  time  of  the  death  of  Sir  Robert  Ker  Porter,  there  was 
already  in  Caracas  a  representative  of  Great  Britain,  Mr.  Daniel 
O'l-eary,  General  of  the  Colombian  army,  who  had  fought  under 
the  orders  of  Bolivar  in  the  war  for  independence,  and  might  well 
have  been  considered  a  Venezuelan,  not  only  for  his  services  to  his 
adopted  country,  but  also  by  reason  of  his  social  connections,  he 
having  married  one  of  Venezuela's  most  prominent  women.  The 
presence  of  General  O'Leary  contributed  greatly  to  calming  the 
public  excitement,  and  General  Paez,  President  of  the  Republic, 
for  the  second  time  during  that  period,  limited  himself  to  the 
statement,  in  his  Message  to  the  Congress  of  the  Republic,  of 
what  follows: 

•*  A  disagreeable  event,  promising  to  affect  our  relations  with 
Great  Britain,  has  occupied  the  attention  of  the  Government, 
and  caused  inquietude  in  the  minds  of  our  citizens.  The  Govern- 
ment of  Her  Britannic  Majesty,  desiring  to  ascertain  the  bound- 
aries of  her  possessions  in  British  Guiana,  despatched  a  Com- 
missioner to  explore  the  territory,  and  designate  the  line  which, 
in  his  judgment,  should  divide  it  from  its  neighboring  countries. 
But  the  Commissioner  not  only  fixed  the  said  line  within 
the  territory  of  Venezuela,  but  did  so  in  such  a  solemn  manner, 
and  employed  such  formal  signs,  that  it  had  more  the  appearance 
of  taking  possession  and  exercising  acts  of  sovereignty,  than  of 
his  being  engaged  in  a  mere  preliminary  examination  or  purely 
provisional  work,  guided  only  by  his  own  knowledge  and  pri- 
vate opinion -which  latter  has  turned  out  to  be  the  case 
according  to  the  explanation  given  by  the  Governor  of  British 
Guiana,  and  also  in  the  answers  received  from  the  British  Govern- 
ment by  our  plenipotentiary  in  London.  They  leave  no  doubt  that, 
whatever  excesses  may  have  been  committed  by  the  Commis- 
sioner, it  has  been  far  from  the  intention  of  Her  Majesty  to  occupy 


Ixxix 
any  part  of  the  territory  of  Venezuela,  and  that  the  fixing  of  the 
boundary  is  subject  to  discussion  between  the  two  Powers.  Such 
a  result,  which  has  had  the  effect  of  quieting  our  countrymen, 
makes  us  hope,  also,  that  the  justice  witli  which  the  Republic 
sustains  its  rights  will  be  seen  and  recognized  in  the  Treaty 
which  is  necessary  to  terminate  this  matter." 

This  language,  so  moderate,  so  sensible,  and  so  friendly  toward 
Great  Britain,  notably  contrasts  with  the  following  words  of  the 
British  Government  to  the  Envoy  of  Venezuela  on  February  10, 
1890: 

'•  As  regards  the  frontier  between  Venezuela  and  the  Colony  of 
British  Guiana,  Her  Majesty's  Government  could  not  accept  as 
satisfactory  any  arrangement  which  did  not  admit  the  British  title 
to  the  territory  comprised  within  the  line  laid  down  by  Sir  R. 
Schomburgk  in  1841." 

Mr.  O'Leary  having  been  sent  to  Bogota  in  the  diplomatic  cap- 
acity which  he  exercised,  he  was>ubstituted  in  1843  by  Mr.  Belfort 
Hinton  Wilson,  as  the  diplomatic  representative  of  Great  Britain 
in  Caracas.  Mr.  Wilson  had  the  rank  of  Colonel  in  the  Colombian 
army  since  1822,  when  he  arrived  in  Venezuela,  and  was,  up  to 
the  last  moment,  one  of  the  aides-de-camp  of  the  Liberator 
Bolivar;  and  so  much  thought  of  by  him  that  the  Liberator  wrote, 
in  the  twelfth  clause  of  his  will,  the  following; 

"I  direct  my  executors  to  give  thanks  to  Mr.  Robert  Wilson 
for  the  good  conduct  of  his  son,  Colonel  Belfort  Wilson,  who  has 
accompanied  me  so  faithfully  up  to  the  last  moments  of  my  life." 

Mr.  Wilson  retired  from  Venezuela  in  1851. 

The  presence  of  two  British  diplomatic  agents,  who  represented 
their  native  country  in  Caracas  during  ten  years,  and  who,  by 
reason  of  their  military  antecedents  in  Colombia,  must  have  been 
personcB  gratissimcB  to  the  Government  and  people  of  Venezuela, 
came  finally  to  be  prejudicial  to  the  Republic;  for  the  intimate 
confidence  that  each  inspired  left  the  public  sentiment  quite  un- 
suspecting regarding  any  ulterior  views  that  the  British  Govern- 


Ixxx 

ment  might  have  upou  the  question  of  the  boundaries  of  Guiana; 
and  this  explains  the  deficiency  of  that  convention  known  as  the 
"  Modus  Vivendi  "  entered  into  in  1850  between  Senor  Lecuna, 
Venezuelan  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  and  Colonel  Wilson, 
Charg6  d'Affaires  of  Her  Britannic  Majesty  in  Caracas— a  con- 
vention agreed  upon  when  France  was  consummating  the  brilliant 
conquest  of  Algeria,  and  the  desire  for  the  colonization  of  foreign 
lands  was  just  being  developed  in  Europe. 

This  is  the  exact  story  of  British  diplomacy  in  Caracas  from 
1830  to  1850. 

Paris,  November  1,  1898. 

(signed)    J.  M.  de  Rojas, 

Agent  of  Venezuela. 


5      70  7  4 


